Leadership Orientation for Social Purpose-Driven, for-Profit Activities By Human Service Organizations

Background and Purpose: The engagement of human service organizations (HSOs) in social financing strategies and market-based activities—termed social purpose-driven, for-profit activities—has increased in response to decreased state funding and private donations, as well as in the pursuit of more autonomy from funders in order to remain aligned with their original mission (so as to avoid mission drift).

As more HSO leaders explore or adopt social purpose driven for-profit activities, it is imperative to better understand the leadership orientation of those leading this work in human service organizations. Little research has been conducted on the leadership orientation of those directing these social purpose-driven, for-profit activities. This qualitative study addresses this gap by identifying the unique characteristics and priorities of leaders to develop a more comprehensive understanding of what shapes leadership orientations and engagement in social purpose driven for-profit activities.

Methods: Forty-six executive leaders from non-profit organizations, social enterprises, and social purpose businesses participated in a virtual 1:1 semi-structured interview across all 10 Canadian provinces. A wide variety of organization types serving and representing a diversity of individuals, groups, and community needs were included. Data were analysed using constant comparison strategies and pattern coding, in-keeping with standardized procedures of analytic induction.

Results: Four themes around leadership emerged from this study. First, leader mindset/perspective, which included subthemes such as amplifying/addressing social issues; the role of the leader and the organization in attaining or promoting social good; business acumen and entrepreneurship; and challenging barriers in the labour market. The second theme was staff development and engagement, which included subthemes around how leaders maintain and promote a growth mindset; centre mentorship; model adaptability; and navigate intra-organizational tensions. A third theme was around workload and responsibilities, which included the scope of the work of executive leaders, as well as how this work happens, including through governance structures. The final theme was external engagement, including subthemes around how and why leaders prioritized partnership engagement, and how they lead the organization in its response to market shifts.

Conclusions and Implications: This study lends specificity to the expertise and priorities of leaders engaged in social purpose-driven, for-profit activities. Correspondingly, the findings carry implications for social work education and training on core leadership competencies in tandem with existing leadership philosophies. To ensure that HSOs serve equity-deserving service user groups, and solve complex social issues in our communities, we need leaders who will continuously envision new solutions and keep these organizations well-resourced to lead this work. Existing literature on HSOs engaged in for-profit activities explores the tensions existing in these hybrid organizations as they balance social and economic goals. The perspectives of leaders in this study affirms that because all activities (both for-profit and non-profit) undertaken by these organizations are focussed on their social mission, this paradox is merely surface level.