Key Concepts

A problem involving a community of people (with their decision-making, behaviors and values), non-human factors, and the relationships between them, all of which exist within, help create, and are constrained by a context that shapes the people’s decision-making, behavior, and values.

This definition combines two concepts, wicked problems and public challenges. Horst W.J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber introduced ten properties of wicked problems in their seminal article on design thinking, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” published in 1973. William B. Rouse, research professor at the Georgetown McCourt School of Public Policy, restates Rittel and Webber’s ten properties in summary form:

“Wicked problems have no stopping rule – there is always a better solution, for example, “fair” taxation and “just” legal systems. Solutions to wicked problems are not true or false, but good or bad. There is no immediate or ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. Wicked problems are not amenable to trial-and- error solutions. There is no innumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions and permissible operations. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. Every wicked problem can be considered a symptom of another problem. Discrepancies in representations can be explained in numerous ways – the choice of explanation determines the nature of problem's resolution. Problem solvers are liable for the consequences of the actions their solutions generate. Many real- world problems have the aforementioned characteristics.”

John Dewey explores the concept of a public challenge in “The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry.” According to Dewey, the public refers to people who are affected by a challenge to the point that a group forms distinct enough to be recognized and named a public. As a public, the group has an interest and may begin to wield enough power to influence change to support its interests.

A process of inspiring (or motivating) and involving stakeholders (decision-makers, decision-influencers, community members, and other stakeholders) in addressing a wicked public challenge in ways that are appropriate to their interests and create shared ownership. The engagement emphasizes bringing more people to the challenge space than typically might be involved in public engagement on a policy or other matter. It also creates space for stakeholders to build relationships and social cohesion among themselves and with the collaborative leader. By sharing learning, stories, and perspectives, collaborative engagement creates opportunities to break down the silos that can separate groups and foster shared ownership in the challenge. The collaborative leader builds trust within the stakeholder network as everyone learns about the history and impacts of past decisions, the current decision- making context, and future opportunities in addressing the challenge. All the while, the collaborative leader is working to make sense of the challenge and what is being learned.

An approach to innovation widely adopted within management fields. Unlike the scientific method, which begins with a theory or hypothesis, design thinking begins with an observable phenomenon. Innovators focus on people’s experiences, create models to examine problems, use prototypes to explore potential solutions, tolerate failure and leverage it for learning, and exhibit thoughtful restraint in examining what a strategy should and shouldn’t do.

The process of making sense and creating structure out of the unknown. We regularly engage in sensemaking, but the urgency and demands of sensemaking have escalated as our environments and world change with increased rapidness. We are experiencing more and more surprises that require adaptive solutions rather than technical ones. Sensemaking provides a disciplined approach to exploring the unknown that enables us to turn the complexity of the surprises into situations we can comprehend with words that serve as a springboard into action.

A process of discerning, developing, and implementing strategies that (1) are appropriate to the situation and people’s needs and (2) lead, in tandem, to new combinations or configurations of social practices that alleviate the wicked public challenge. In essence, people and institutions change their behavior in response to the strategies, which shifts the results of the system. Adopting the words that Greg Jones, the President of Belmont University, a new equilibrium is reached that “unleashes new value for society, releases trapped potential, or alleviates suffering.” (See Jones’ book, Christian Social Innovation.) The collaborative leader guides and facilitates the process and decision-making throughout. With this definition, there are several points to keep in mind: (1) appropriateness is a key aspect of social innovation, (2) social innovation can encompass a range of things that may not, at first, seem innovative, (3) social innovation often involves the development of several individual strategies coordinated in a way to shift the system toward better results, (4) defining and measuring social impact is a necessary component of social innovation, and (5) a theory of change can help clarify thinking, action, evaluation, and decision- making about wicked public challenge strategies. Finally, social innovations ameliorate social problems but they may not solve them.

Social innovation, social enterprise, and social entrepreneurship are related but different concepts, even though some people use them interchangeably. Social enterprises involve the development of for-profit business models that foster social innovation. Social entrepreneurship is more a mindset that builds on “long-held understandings about entrepreneurs but applies them in new ways.” (quote from Social Entrepreneurship by David Bornstein and Susan Davis).

Social innovators may be involved in developing social enterprises as strategies for addressing wicked public challenges. They also will likely demonstrate an entrepreneurial mindset, exhibiting entrepreneurial qualities in their work. However, social innovators may assume roles and develop approaches not typical of social enterprise leaders or part of the social entrepreneurial mindset.

Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It recognizes that development (change over time) does not necessarily involve growth (expansion over time).

Sustainable development calls for concerted efforts toward building an inclusive, sustainable, and resilient future for people and the planet, which requires harmonizing three core elements – economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection – and eradicating poverty in all its forms. These interconnected elements are crucial for the wellbeing of individuals and societies.

To this end, the UN Sustainable Development goals promote sustainable, inclusive, and equitable economic growth, creating greater opportunities for all, reducing inequalities, raising basic standards of living, fostering equitable social development and inclusion, and promoting integrated and sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems.

A discipline for seeing wholes, interrelationships, and patterns distilled over time, which is essential when dealing with complexity. Systems thinking shifts our attention from seeing people as helpless reactors to seeing them as active participants in shaping their reality even if their choices are limited.

For our purposes, systems thinking draws on concepts of “soft systems thinking” rather than the “hard systems thinking” of quantitative solutions from mathematical or mechanical models.

A fundamental principle of soft systems thinking is that structure influences behavior. Structure doesn’t mean an organizational chart but rather the interrelationships among variables that influence behavior over time – like population, natural resources, history, and culture. People are part of the feedback process, not standing apart from it. It is the relationships between people and between system factors and people that over time produce results. Change the relationships, and you’ll get different results.