Human Service Organizations as an Arena for Social Intrapreneurship: A Cross‐Country Analysis

ABSTRACT

A comprehensive comparative study using qualitative methodology was conducted in Israel and the U.S. to examine the goals that social workers seek to achieve through social intrapreneurship, measures of success for social intrapreneurship and motivations to act as social intrapreneurs. Categorical content analysis was used to identify recurring themes according to predetermined study questions. The research findings provide insights into the role of social organizations and social work education systems in designing policies that promote the involvement of social workers in social intrapreneurship to address complex and ongoing social problems.

Practice Points

• Understanding social intrapreneurship from the perspective of social workers employed in human service organizations may help social work human service managers understand how to promote organizational mechanisms for engaging in social intrapreneurship.

• Social work human service managers can increase social workers’ motivations to engage in social intrapreneurship by refining job requirements and providing knowledge, resources, and professional skills.

• Human service organizations should promote an organizational culture of measurement and evaluation of social initiatives that may increase social workers’ sense of responsibility.

KEYWORDS:

• Social human service organizations
• social intrapreneurship
• social work

Introduction

The main mission of the social work profession, as expressed in professional codes of ethics worldwide, is the promotion of people’s well-being, quality of life, social justice and equality, as well as assistance in realizing social rights and providing professional services to address human needs (ISASW, 2018; NASW, 2021). To meet these professional requirements, models, approaches, and tools have been developed over the years for professional interventions in social work. These include professional practices designed to provide psychosocial support, strengthen communities, and help vulnerable populations deal with poverty and exclusion (e.g., Krumer-Nevo, 2016; Payne, 2020; Rothman, 2007).

Nevertheless, in the 21^st century, social workers are required to address social problems in innovative ways to provide an adequate response to the increasingly complex challenges that exist in an ever-changing environment (Grand Challenges for Social Work, 2021). Indeed, in the past decade, social workers have been called upon to adopt innovative approaches within profession practice (Bent-Goodley, 2002; S. C. Berzin, 2012; S. C. Berzin et al., 2015; Nandan & Mandayam, 2020; Nandan & Scott, 2013; Nandan et al., 2015; Nouman & Cnaan, 2022; Savaya et al., 2008).

Innovative approaches represent the creation of a host of new strategies for more effective, efficient, and sustainable solutions for social change (S. Berzin & Camarena, 2018). It is more common for social innovation to occur through social intrapreneurship (Schmitz & Scheuerle, 2012), a process used to create innovative, sustainable change within existing organizations. A social intrapreneur is “[a] person who focuses on innovation and creativity and who transforms a dream or an idea into a profitable venture, by operating within the organizational environment” (Carland & Carland, 2007, p. 84). These individuals are change agents within organizations who recognize new opportunities, take calculated risks, and use existing infrastructures and resources innovatively to create social change (Nandan & Mandayam, 2020; Nandan et al., 2015, 2016).

In the context of social work, these and other such definitions (Bent-Goodley, 2002; Nandan et al., 2019; Nouman & Cnaan, 2021) refer to social intrapreneurship as a practice among social workers that is carried out as an integral part of their professional activity in all areas of practice, the purpose of which is to lead any change in the organizational operations that can lead to increased efficiency or effectiveness. Such social intrapreneurship is aimed at addressing social issues through innovative solutions, productivity, and transformative interventions to promote social change. This could include a shift in resource development strategies within a human service organization, new organizational structures, organizational policy innovations, or changes in service delivery processes (S. Berzin & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2015).

Over the past decades, empirical studies have examined social intrapreneurship from a business organization perspective (e.g., Brunåker & Kurvinen, 2006; Carland & Carland, 2007; Konda et al., 2015; Schmitz & Scheuerle, 2012). These studies mostly focused on the characteristics, skills, and competencies required from human service managers, such as social innovation, risk taking, and proactiveness (Nandan & Mandayam, 2020; Schmitz & Scheuerle, 2012; Turpin & Shier, 2023), or social intrapreneurship behaviors (Nandan et al., 2016).

This perspective has scarcely been examined in social work contexts, and therefore little is known about social intrapreneurship from the perspective of social workers who are employed in human service organizations. In this study, we sought to address this gap.

Social workers as social intrapreneurs

Growing interest in social innovation in social work has been linked to the profession’s orientation toward social change and finding opportunities in broader contexts to promote social value (Nandan & Mandayam, 2020; Nouman & Cnaan, 2022, 2023; Singh, 2016). In recent years, the need for social innovation that occurs within existing organizations through social intrapreneurship has led to increased consideration of the transformations that have taken place in the world. These include, among other things, a significant decline in public and private support for social services, poverty, racism, and social inequality (Fernando, 2015). These global and local changes require social workers to adopt new models and concepts for service provision (S. C. Berzin, 2012; Nandan & Mandayam, 2020). Godwin et al. (2022) argue that in the current era, social workers must change their perception of vulnerable populations in the care models they use and include social work innovation in social work practice models.

The literature on social intrapreneurship in social work emphasizes that leveraging the capacity of existing organizations to design and implement innovation is an important way to respond to social problems (S. Berzin & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2015). In fact, social workers working as social intrepreneurs are innovative, proactive, and willing to take calculated risks within the organization to benefit vulnerable clients and communities (Alipour et al., 2011; Nandan et al., 2016; Pantry & Griffiths, 2000; Schmitz & Scheuerle, 2012).

This innovation has been documented throughout history. The most notable example is Jane Addams, one of the pioneers of the social work profession, who was called upon to creatively address complex social and economic challenges (Misheva & Blasko, 2018). Less celebrated, the Charity Organization Societies were also a major social innovation that came about as a response to rising industrialization. Nevertheless, in practice, many social workers continue to demonstrate a reluctance to embrace social entrepreneurship practices for various reasons. These include, among other things, the lack of knowledge and skills required to engage in social innovation (S. C. Berzin, 2012; Nandan & Scott, 2013), discouragement by supervisors and agency policies (Savaya et al., 2008; Schmitz & Scheuerle, 2012), and difficulties associated with organizations’ tendency to remain in stasis, which is often experienced as resistance to change (S. Berzin & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2015; Gilley et al., 2009).

These gaps precipitated discussions on the need to strengthen the engagement of social workers in social innovation through the development of training and education programs (S. C. Berzin, 2012; Fernando, 2015; Nandan et al., 2015). Indeed, in recent years, training programs for innovation have been developed worldwide (e.g., CSWE, 2015; Savaya et al., 2008). These training programs are based on the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) standards, which highlight excellence, creativity, and innovation as key foundational concepts of schools of social work (CSWE, 2022).

Those engaged in social innovation have been documented in the literature as providing multidimensional solutions to social problems (Nandan et al., 2019). These individuals combine social work skills with management skills to create social initiatives of social value (Nandan & Mandayam, 2020). These include legislative advocacy, media use, strategic networking, marketing, resource development, and cultural norms and traditions (Nandan et al., 2015; Nouman & Cnaan, 2021).

Social intrapreneurship in human service organizations

There is a consensus regarding the relationship between engagement in social intrapreneurship and the characteristics of the organization in which are employed (Schmitz & Scheuerle, 2012). A prominent issue is the extent to which human service managers are committed to intrapreneurship, encourage it, and see it as a legitimate way to respond to new challenges (S. Berzin & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2015). In organizations that do not support social intrapreneurship, it is perceived as time-consuming, complex, irrelevant, and deemed to have a negative effect on the target population (S. Berzin & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2015; Brown, 2010).

The literature on social intrapreneurship presents several models of innovation that guide human service managers in social work to initiate and facilitate social intrapreneurship (Jaskyte, 2019; Nandan et al., 2015; Turpin & Shier, 2019). These models included transformational leadership, organizational culture, organizational procedures, organizational cohesion, organizational structure, staff engagement, board governance, and inter-organizational partnerships.

This theoretical understanding of the factors that influence intrapreneurship has been recently translated into a practical approach for promoting entrepreneurship in human service organizations, known as the “Human Centered Design” (Nandan et al., 2020). This approach is based on understanding user needs, ideating, testing, and implementing potential solutions. As such, this approach to creative problem solving allows leaders and human service managers to deeply understand the people they serve, generate numerous ideas, design, and implement innovative solutions to address end-users’ real challenges. As mentioned above, this important theoretical and practical knowledge has not been examined from the perspective of social workers employed in human service organizations.

Previous studies have extensively examined qualities and skills required from social workers from a social innovation perspective. These studies identified qualities such as social responsibility, self-sufficiency, leadership, the ability to face ongoing challenges (Cnaan & Vinokur-Kaplan, 2014), identifying political opportunities (Nouman & Cnaan, 2022), risk taking, proactive behavior and advocacy (Nandan et al., 2016). Despite this extensive literature, less is known about the goals of the ventures initiated by social workers, how they measure impact, and what motivated them to engage in intrapreneurship.

The research context: a cross‐country analysis

In this study we focus on practicing social workers in Israel and the U.S., both of which represent similar types of welfare state regimes. On the surface, both countries belong to a group of liberal welfare regimes according to the typology of Esping-Andersen (1990) and Arts and Gelissen (2002). In these countries, the free market is the main provider of human services for the population. Human services are mainly intended for those of lower socioeconomic status and are dependent on the state. In both countries, the state adopts a policy that actively promotes the free market by funding private human services rather than directly providing them.

However, these countries have significant differences regarding welfare services and the roles of social workers. In Israel, the state also provides passive assistance by guaranteeing subsistence needs and maintaining the principle of “eligibility of the deprived:” any allowance the state gives shall be lower than the salary that person could earn in the free market. In the U.S., there are guaranteed subsistence needs. No state provides any serious form of income assistance, and the federal government truncated its last such program (TANF) to a maximum of sixty months lifetime (Weaver, 2015).

In Israel, the main model for providing social services is defined as “partial privatization.” This means that government agencies and local authorities define the composition of the services to be provided, provide full or partial funding, and determine service eligibility. However, non-governmental organizations deliver these services under the supervision of different levels of government ministries or municipalities (Bar-Nir & Gal, 2011; Katan & Lowenstein, 2009). In the United States, apart from child welfare and community mental health, the government does not provide or finance social services. Many of the social services that are provided by the public state in Israel are offered by nonprofit organizations that are partially or not at all funded by governments. In fact, by law, all local authorities in Israel must operate social services departments. This also explains why nearly half the social workers in Israel are employed by local authorities whereas in the U.S., most social workers are employed by nonprofit organizations or work privately.

In Israel, the policy style and administrative culture tends to be reactive to unexpected social problems (Lahat et al., 2021). This reality has led to a more intrapreneurial culture, even when it comes to social workers (Latzer, 2019; Recanati-Kop-Rashi Award Association, 2018). In the U.S., agencies both public and private work by their own methods and offer different services (Parri, 2008).

The difference between these two cultures, especially with respect to meeting people in need, offers us an opportunity to understand the similarities and differences in social workers’ intrapreneurship from a cross-national perspective.

Methods

Procedure

Between 2021–2022, the authors conducted a large-scale quantitative study, examining the links between personal and organizational factors affecting the engagement or lack thereof in social intrapreneurship. This study was conducted among social workers in Israel and the U.S. Participants were classified as a social intrapreneurs if they acted innovatively within an existing social service agency or human service organization. For example, if they established a new organization or created a new venture.

Data collection

The sample included 285 social workers in Israel and 277 in the U.S., recruited using purposive convenience sampling (Patton, 2014). In Israel, the inclusion criterion of the sample included human service organizations that employed at least one social worker. An e-mail was sent to a contact person in each of these human service organizations, containing an explanation of the study aims and a link to an online survey for social workers. The questionnaires were sent to 500 social workers in Israel, yielding a response rate of 57% in Israel. It was less feasible to approach various human service organizations in the U.S. As such, the authors distributed the questionnaire through a listserv of registered members of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). Due to the nature of online survey invitations, it is not clear how many received our invitation.

Social workers who reported being engaged in social intrapreneurship were asked to answer a series of open-ended questions concerning the characteristics of the social initiative they were promoting, as previously mentioned. Specifically, the questions were: (1) What are the goals of your initiative? (2) How do you measure the impact of your social initiative? (3) Why are you involved in social intrapreneurship?

Out of all the respondents to the questionnaire, a combined 186 social workers in Israel and the U.S. reported that they are engaged in social intrapreneurship: 110 participants in Israel (38.5%) and 76 participants in the U.S. (27%). The analysis of the findings refers to these social workers. As seen in Table 1, most of the participants who engage in social intrapreneurship in both countries were women, in Israel 91 (82.7%) and in the U.S. 56 (73.7%). Their mean age was 43 years (SD = 10.5) for Israel and 49.7 (SD = 15.0) for the U.S. The average number of years of employment as social workers (seniority) was 15.2 (SD = 13.0) in Israel and 16.8 (SD = 14.0) for the U.S. Social workers working in a variety of organizations in the public, third (nonprofit), and private sectors were represented in the sample. All participants were certified social workers, graduates from academic institutions who obtained a bachelor’s or master’s degree in social work.

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics.

	Israel social workers engaged in social entrepreneurship (n = 110)		U.S. social workers engaged in social entrepreneurship (n = 76)
	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
Gender
Female	91	82.69	56	73.68
Male	19	17.31	20	26.32
Marital status
Non-married	27	24.54	30	39.47
Married	83	75.46	46	60.53
Age	43.2	-	49	-
Education
Bachelor’s	15	13.64	1	1.32
Master’s	76	69.10	55	72.37
Doctorate	2	1. 81	14	18.42
Other*	17	15.45	6	7.89
Seniority/Years of Experience	15.2^d	-	16.8^d	-
Sector of workplace
Public sector	35	31.82	10	13.33
Nonprofit sector	48	43.63	29	38.67
Private sector	-	-	25	33.33
Other*	27	24.55	11	14.67

*Other -denotes that some participants refused to provide information in the initial quantitative survey.

Data analysis

The data were analyzed using categorical content analysis (subtopics), which is used to identify recurring themes according to predetermined study questions (Lieblich et al., 2010). The first stage of the analysis included reading the answers to the open-ended questions and grouping them according to the three research topics. At this stage, the categories identified for each of the three research topics were not finalized, but rather existed only as a list of ideas derived from the answers. In the second stage, the answers provided to each question were examined in depth in order to identify content categories for each of the three research topics separately. It was at this stage that the categories (subtopics) that the interviewees discussed began to take shape. The creation of categories at this stage was dynamic and changed several times during the sorting process. In the third stage, after identifying categories in each of the three research topics, data was collected for the number of times each topic was mentioned, while describing the answers to each question in an exhaustive manner.

During the data analysis process, the first and third authors independently read the transcripts and identified recurring themes. Subsequently, in meetings held with all authors, the themes were discussed, along with their division and matching the answers to each category. Of note, participants who reported that they engage in social intrapreneurship often answered only some of the questions rather than all of them.

Research ethics

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the authors’ respective universities. Meticulous adherence to ethical standards was maintained throughout all stages of the research. All participants received a letter explaining that participation is voluntary and that there would be no sanctions for nonparticipation. All participants gave written informed consent before answering the questioners. The data that were collected online using Qualtrics software, which ensures the anonymity of respondents.

Results

Figure 1 shows the goals that social workers seek to achieve through social intrapreneurship, measures of success for intrapreneurship and motivations to act as social intrapreneurs.

Figure 1. Goals, measures of success, and motivations to act as social intrapreneurs.

Goals of social intrapreneurship

Our findings revealed three main themes related to the goals that social workers sought to achieve through social intrapreneurship. Of the total 186 respondents 79% answered this question (75.5% in Israel and 84.2% in the U.S.). The themes that emerged are: (1) To address the immediate needs of clients (50.6% in Israel and 73.4% in the U.S.); (2) To engage the local community (from individuals to relevant national organizations) in addressing community problems (31.3% in Israel and 20.3% in the U.S.); (3) Maximization of social benefits¹ and policy design processes (18.1% in Israel and 6.3% in the U.S.). In this respect, American intrapreneurial social workers were more likely to mention addressing the needs of clients while Israeli intrapreneurial social workers were more likely to report engaging community wide engagement as well as enhancing community response to needs/problems.

The main theme identified focused on the client level. Intrapreneurial social workers aimed to fill the void that they had identified regarding client services. By acting intrapreneurially, social workers sought to provide innovative solutions more adapted to the needs of clients to help improve their quality of life. Respondents shared goals such as “to provide counseling and training for young mothers” and “to help people experience peace of mind.” We also note that this theme was more highly reported by the U.S. sample than the Israeli sample.

The second theme that emerged focused on the social service’ environment – a more mezzo level. Social workers were engaging and collaborating with individuals and community organizations to come together and address their specific issues as well as social problems that affect many in the community. This is done in part by raising the social awareness and mobilizing communities and organizations to address specific issues that they face. Examples of this include “to develop an endeavor that will educate communities on how to identify and prevent child abuse and neglect” and “to create communities that are more welcoming and beneficial for asylum seekers.”

Lastly, social workers were also interested in creating programs that would help groups of clients to maximize their ability to benefit from available but hard to reach social benefits. Intrapreneurial social workers were also interested in using social intrapreneurship for promoting their social vision on the policy level. Through the development and promotion of social initiatives, social workers aim to assist clients by improving access to public benefits and advocate for policies that would benefit their clients. Examples of this goal are: “promoting an initiative that provides basic legal service to clients of the service;” “developing a national initiative to promote equal opportunities for minority populations;” and “developing an initiative to promote urban policy to reduce gender gaps.”

Measuring the impact of social intrapreneurship

Our findings revealed four categories pertaining to how the two groups of social work intrapreneurs measure impact. These were: (1) The number of participants engaged (40.7% mentioned this in Israel and 34.1% in the U.S.); (2) Reported satisfaction level of clients and/or partners engaged (8.5% in Israel and 43.2% in the U.S.); (3) Improvement of participants’ personal skills/behaviors (20.3% in Israel and 20.5% in the U.S.); and (4) Signs of progress in the community (30.5% in Israel and 2.3% in the U.S.)

The most common theme regarding measurement was quantitative, that is, the number of participants attending or benefiting. This can refer to the number of clients participating in the initiative, or the number of partners involved in promoting the initiative. Some examples that participants shared with us included “the number of clients served” and “the number of organizations and clients involved.”

Additionally, impact was also measured according to a subjective element, or the reported level of satisfaction of clients. Respondents cited satisfaction of clients while others cited satisfaction of partners involved from the community as their basis of measuring impact. One such example mentioned “the number of providers and clients involved in the initiative.”

In some cases, participants reported that behavioral aspects, such as social and behavioral skills, which service clients acquire as part of their participation in the social initiative, reflected their initiative’s impact. This ranged from the acquisition of healthy coping skills to financial literacy skills or reducing unhealthy behaviors.

Lastly, some participants stated that impact was measured according to how much of a change occurred in the community or society at large. Examples included “partnership among previously unaffiliated parties” and “the increased accessibility to services and spaces that were previously inaccessible for certain populations.”

As can be seen from these findings, relatively few participants reported to actively measure the impact of their initiatives (this question had the lowest response rate). Moreover, the two samples greatly differed in how they measured impact. More American intrapreneurial social workers mentioned measuring level of client satisfaction while more Israelis mentioned signs of community progress.

Motivation to undertake social intrapreneurship

Of the 186 respondents 88.7% answered the question regarding motivation (83.6% in Israel and 96.1% in the U.S.). According to participants, the motivation to engage in social intrapreneurship fell within three general categories. (1) Personal motives (31.5% in Israel and 46.6% in the U.S.), (2) Empathy for clients (32.6% in Israel and 32.9% in the U.S.), and (3) Professional requirements and responsibilities (35.9% in Israel and 20.5% in the U.S.). Our results indicate that our two samples also deviate noticeably regarding motivations. In the United States, personal motives ranked first whereas occupational requirements ranked first in Israel.

Many participants explained that their own personal desires motivated them to engage intrapreneurially to tackle social problems. Things such as “equality,” “solidarity,” and “social justice” were cited repeatedly by respondents when discussing their personal desires to engage in social intrapreneurship.

Several respondents indicated that their social intrapreneurship was born out of empathy for their clients. One respondent reported that their motivation stemmed from “a frustration with existing services.” This respondent went on to state that “a high percentage of clients who suffer from the problem with no viable solution in the community.”

Lastly, some of the participants reported that their motivation stems from their professional requirements and duty as social workers. One participant shared: “Part of my professional role in the organization is to create adequate solutions that do not currently exist.” Others emphasized the combination of responsibility to help communities and the professional knowledge and skills they possess that can help others. For example, one participant said, “As a professional, I feel a responsibility toward residents, and I have the professional knowledge of how to help them.” Several social workers also mentioned their organization’s expectations that they would be active in finding creative new solutions. For example, “my involvement reflects the requirements of the organization where I am employed.”

Discussion

Complex and ongoing social problems oblige social workers to adopt social intrapreneurship as part of their work in human service organizations. Based on a large-scale study conducted in Israel and the U.S., we identified central goals for the social initiatives in social work. In addition, our findings provide a better understanding of how social workers measure impact, and what motivated them to engage in social intrapreneurship.

The goals of social intrapreneurship revealed in the current study demonstrate that social workers engage in intrapreneurial ventures to enable clients to receive better solutions for their needs. Through the development of new services and the construction of innovative programs, social workers serve, influence, and empower disadvantaged populations. Furthermore, our findings reveal that social initiatives are also intended to promote changes in the community by generating awareness and organizing both residents and local organizations to actively face social problems. These initiatives are also aimed to maximize accessibility to public benefits.

These findings are not surprising. Previous studies on social innovation indicate that social initiatives are intended to promote social transformation; satisfy human needs; create empowering environments by increasing the social, financial, and political capacity of communities (Moulaert et al., 2005; Van der Have & Rubalcaba, 2016); and promote policies to provide necessary resources for vulnerable populations (S. Berzin & Camarena, 2018). These aspects were also examined in the context of community social workers (Nandan et al., 2014, 2016). When further analyzing the results of this study, U.S. respondents were more likely to mention the needs of their clients while Israeli respondents were more likely to mention the maximization of social benefits. This difference can be attributed to the fact that social workers in the U.S. are not as heavily engaged in the maximization of social benefits and policy design processes as others, such as social workers from Europe or Israel. It may also be explained that more American respondents worked privately or in in for-profit organizations.

Social workers in the current study indicated four main ways in which the impact of their social intrapreneurship is measured. These goals can be divided into subjective and objective aspects. Subjective aspects include the degree of satisfaction of both clients and partners, whereas objective aspects include the number of participants, improvement in the personal skills or other metrics, and signs of progress in the community. Our U.S. respondents were more likely to mention that impact was measured by reported satisfaction levels of clients and/or partners engaged while Israelis were more likely to report measuring signs in the community.

These differences are not surprising and actually reflect the cultural differences between countries (Hofstede, 1980). The U.S. is characterized as an individualistic culture that prioritizes the individual over the group (Triandis, 2018). On the other hand, Israeli society is characterized as a collectivist culture that prioritizes issues related to the broader community – a mutual guarantee society that assists those who are weak (Dagan & Porat, 2016). Hence, social workers measure the impact of empathy according to the prevailing cultural values.

We note that it’s important for human service organizations to understand whether the social initiative has achieved its desired goal. Organizations can then change the strategic direction of the initiative or reduce/expand it accordingly. They can also choose to try and foster a sense of community responsibility among partners or increase their involvement and/or funding for the initiative. Furthermore, the measurement of an initiative may help human service organizations identify and establish solutions to social problems. These findings are in line with previous studies that emphasized the importance of measuring the impact of social initiatives (GIIN – Global Impact Investing Network, 2015; Kramer, 2005).

The motivations of social workers to act as social intrapreneurs shared in this current study reveal a personal desire to address social problems and empathy for clients. Overall, these findings are in line with previous research findings, indicating that personal passion based on moral values and norms, such as promoting social justice and promoting equality, is central to creating innovative, sustainable change (Hockerts, 2015; Plaskoff, 2012). In addition, our findings revealed that social workers were motivated by their organizational requirements and professional duty to pursue innovation in serving their clients. Taken further, our data reveal that U.S. respondents cited personal motives more frequently while Israeli respondents cited their understanding of their professional requirements and responsibilities as their motivation. Some of these differences can be attributed to the countries’ differences in the professional socialization processes for social work. In Israel, increased emphasis is placed on the need to promote equality and social justice in the professional discourse and training frameworks (Social Affairs and Social Services Ministry, 2012), while the U.S. is much more individualistic. As such, personal motives are part of the prevailing “me culture.”

Although it is assumed that many social workers are not intrapreneurial, this article reveals that many of them are. They are still a minority among social workers, but not an uncommon minority. Still, we need more studies to understand how countries differ regarding social work intrapreneurship. What is encouraging, is that in the two distinct culture social workers are engaged in social intrapreneurship to enhance the care they provide to people in need. These findings also emphasize that social workers have the skills and abilities to successfully deal with the challenges they face. Social workers who are guided by social justice values and are committed to act for change not only respond to the needs of their clients, but also seek creative ways to help them through the development of social initiatives.

Limitations

The main limitation of this study is the cross-sectional, moment in time capture. As social intrapreneurship often requires constant change and evolution, this study may miss the full picture regarding measurements of impact and motivations related to the initiatives. Furthermore, there were varying degrees of completion for each question (i.e., questions on goals, measurement, motivations) and we reported the respective percentages according to those responding. The conclusions that emerged from the analysis of the findings, similar to any qualitative research, cannot generalize about other populations, but only indicate general trends regarding measurement and motivational goals. We also note that this study only focused on social workers in two countries (Israel and the United States). We recommend that future studies examine this issue in different countries, among social workers employed in diverse human service organizations, using different methodologies. The samples in both countries were selected differently, a fact that may produce bias. Furthermore, we only included social workers who self-defined themselves as social intrapreneurs. This prevented us from setting our own definition and verifying if participants are indeed involved in social intrapreneurship. Nevertheless, by identifying these findings in an extensive study among social workers, we were able to collect rich information on the subject, allowing for a deeper understanding of social intrapreneurship in the context of social work.

Conclusions and implications for practice

In this study, we examined intrapreneurial social workers from two countries. To our knowledge, this is the first study to do so. Our findings have implications for social work education and practice. The literature on social innovation and entrepreneurship in social work mostly emphasizes the lack of engagement of social workers in social intrapreneurship. This study reveals that the personal passion of social workers, their commitment to clients, and their job requirements influence intrapreneurial intentions and motivate social intrapreneurship. Therefore, it is recommended that employers take inventory of their work culture and examine if they foster or discourage intrapreneurship either directly or indirectly. If the latter, then make efforts to change so that the workplace is one that fosters social intrapreneurship.

Social work educators and human service managers need to commit to expanding the discourse on social intrapreneurship in order to develop awareness and commitment to act in an innovative, creative, and transformative manner to provide tailored responses to existing challenges. Team workshops and training programs focusing on innovation, meetings with social intrapreneurs who successfully promoted changes, social entrepreneurship initiatives, and mentoring programs involving guidance and support may enhance the motivation and readiness of social workers to act as social intrapreneurs.

It is recommended that human service managers promote an organizational culture of measurement and evaluation, which can increase the sense of responsibility of social workers and partners. Such a culture includes cultivating skills and knowledge regarding ways to promote social initiatives, define clear goals for intrapreneurship, and develop methods to measure the impact of intrapreneurship. This can also enable social workers to identify and understand what is most and least effective as regards their target populations.

Finally, human service organizations must provide appropriate organizational support and promote constructive ways to help social workers engage in social intrapreneurship. These ways may include collaborative peer learning, incentives for employees initiating social initiatives, and joint hackathon events for teams to promote shared creative solutions. These aspects may promote creative and innovative solutions, which are required in the current era to deal with complex social problems.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ Maximization of social benefits refers to the fact that people are not always aware that they are eligible for certain programs. Eligible people need to know what benefits that they are eligible for, and they need to know how to fill out different and at times conflicting forms, while applying in a timely manner. Social workers in many countries specialize in helping clients achieve maximum possible public support. In the U.S. this is less common, often carried out by case managers who are not always from social work backgrounds. The scant American literature refers to this task as “take up” (see, Bearson & Sunstein, 2023; Finkelstein & Notowidigdo, 2019; Fox et al., 2023).