Modelos Organizacionales con Propósito para la Transformación Social. Estudio de caso de Impact Hub Donostia

  1. Zaitegi Gamiz, Maite 1
  1. 1 Mondragon Goi Eskola Politeknikoa, Mondragon Unibertsitatea
Revista:
Gizaekoa: Revista vasca de economía social

ISSN: 1698-7446

Año de publicación: 2022

Número: 19

Páginas: 171-199

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1387/GIZAEKOA.23775 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Gizaekoa: Revista vasca de economía social

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

The goal of this research is to identify and describe the distinguishing elements of an organization that contributes to social transformation. Seeking to understand the relationship between its purpose and its organizational model, as well as between the purpose of the organization and the well-being of the people who constitute it. Presented as the case study of Impact Hub Donostia S. Coop, this work has been carried out following the inductive method, with the aim of constructing a faithful narrative to the reality experienced by the people who are part of it –without being conditioned by a previous theoretical framework–. For this matter, six categories defining the organizational model of the cooperative have been obtained and framed in the theoretical context deduced from the empirical results. Concluding that the alignment of people’s individual purpose with the purpose of the organization, as well as the collective wisdom achieved through a level of group consciousness, are key elements to move towards organizational models that respond more effectively to people’s needs.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aldiabat, K., & Le Navenec, C.-L. (2018). Data Saturation: The Mysterious Step In Grounded Theory Method. The Qualitative Report. https://doi. org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.2994
  • Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development and adaptation. Sage Publications.
  • Beck, D., & Cowan, C. C. (1996). Spiral dynamics: Mastering values, leadership, and change: exploring the new science of memetics. Blackwell Business.
  • Cacioppe, R., & Edwards, M. (2005). Seeking the Holy Grail of organisational development: A synthesis of integral theory, spiral dynamics, corporate transformation and action inquiry. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(2), 86-105. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730510582536
  • Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision (Paperback edition first published 2016 with corrections). Cambridge University Press.
  • Cutcliffe, J. R. (2000). Methodological issues in grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(6), 1476-1484. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365- 2648.2000.01430.x
  • Engward, H. (2013). Understanding grounded theory. NURSING STANDARD, 5.
  • Esbjörn-Hargens, S. (2010). Integral theory in action: Applied, theoretical, and constructive perspectives on the AQAL model. State University of New york Press.
  • Frankl, V. E. (1966). Self-Transcendence as a Human Phenomenon. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 6(2), 97-106. https://doi. org/10.1177/002216786600600201
  • Frankl, V. E. (1985). Logos, Paradox, and the Search for Meaning. En M. J. Mahoney & A. Freeman (Eds.), Cognition and Psychotherapy (pp. 259-275). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-7562-3_10
  • Glaser, B. G. (2002). Conceptualization: On Theory and Theorizing Using Grounded Theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100203
  • Glenda, H. E. (2011). Complexity and the Dynamics of Organizational Change. En P. Allen, S. Maguire, & B. McKelvey, The Sage Handbook of Complexity and Management (pp. 317-332). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781446201084.n19
  • Grawitch, M. J., Gottschalk, M., & Munz, D. C. (2006). The path to a healthy workplace: A critical review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and organizational improvements. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(3), 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293 .58.3.129
  • Hollensbe, E., Wookey, C., Hickey, L., George, G., & Nichols, C. V. (2014). Organizations with Purpose. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1227- 1234. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.4005
  • Laloux, F. (2016). Reinventar las organizaciones: Cómo crear organizaciones inspiradas en el siguiente estadio de la conciencia humana. Arpa.
  • LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded Theory Methods and qualitative Family Research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 837-857. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1741-3737.2005.00179.x
  • Max-Neef, M. A., Elizalde, A., & Hopenhayn, M. (1994). Desarrollo a escala humana: Conceptos, aplicaciones y algunas reflexiones (1. ed). Icaria.
  • Mingers, J. (1989). An introduction to autopoiesis—Implications and applications. Systems Practice, 2(2), 159-180. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01059497
  • Ongori, H. (2007). A review of the literature on employee turnover. 6. Pérez López, J. A. (2018). Fundamentos de la dirección de empresas. Rialp. Sanford, C. (2017). The Regenerative Business: Redesign Work, Cultivate Human
  • Potential, Achieve Extraordinary Outcomes. Hachette UK. Schwarz, R., Davidson, A., Carlson, P., & McKiney, S. (2005). The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook: Tips, tools and tested methods for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches (1o). JOSSEy-BASS.
  • Smith, K., & Biley, F. (1997). Understanding grounded theory: Principles and evaluation. Qualitative Data Analysis, 4(3):17-30.
  • yeoman, R. (2014). Conceptualising Meaningful Work as a Fundamental Human Need. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(2), 235-251. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-013-1894-9
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet