Surface vs. Deep Strategies for Driving Social Change
Organizations can employ distinct strategies for social change, differing in their depth, speed, and impact.
Journal of Management · 2016
Key Findings
- 01Positive Social Change (PSC) can be understood as a transformational process.
- 02Two distinct PSC strategies exist: surface-level and deep-level.
- 03Surface-level strategies focus on immediate, localized changes, while deep-level strategies aim for pervasive and durable societal impact.
- 04The choice of strategy influences the nature, speed, quality, timing, and reach of social impact.
Application
Design takeaway
Choose between surface-level strategies for rapid, targeted impact or deep-level strategies for systemic, long-term societal transformation, and align project mechanisms accordingly.
How to apply
When initiating a social impact design project, clearly define whether the goal is a quick fix or a fundamental societal shift, and select methods that support that objective.
Project actions
- 01Clearly articulate the 'depth' of social change your design aims to achieve.
- 02Consider how your design's mechanisms contribute to either immediate relief or systemic transformation.
Method & Evidence
Variables
Strengths & Limitations
Strengths
- +Provides a much-needed integrative framework for understanding social change initiatives.
- +Clearly differentiates between two key strategic approaches to social impact.
Limitations
It can be challenging to empirically measure the 'depth' and 'durability' of social change, and the distinction between strategies might not always be clear-cut in practice.
Reliability & validity
The conceptual nature of the framework means reliability and validity are assessed through the coherence and comprehensiveness of the integrated literature rather than direct empirical testing.
Think critically
To what extent can a single project effectively employ both surface-level and deep-level strategies simultaneously, and what are the potential trade-offs?
Design Principles
"Align social impact strategy with desired depth and durability of change."
Understanding these strategic differences allows design teams to better align their projects with desired social outcomes, whether aiming for immediate, localized improvements or long-term, systemic transformations.
What This Means for Your Design
There are two main ways organizations can try to make the world better: one is quick and fixes a specific problem, the other is slower but changes things more deeply for a long time.
How to use in your project
- 1.Use the distinction between surface and deep strategies to frame the problem and justify your design choices for social impact.
- 2.Analyze existing solutions or your proposed solution in terms of which strategy it employs.
Add to My Project
Quick Cite
(2016). Organizations Driving Positive Social Change. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316633268 Retrieved from https://designdex.org/study/33e86f1e-23b2-48ed-aac4-e36fae6ab1a4/surface-vs-deep-strategies-for-driving-social-change
Paragraph starter
This design project adopts a deep-level strategy for positive social change, aiming for pervasive and durable societal impact rather than immediate, surface-level improvements. This approach is informed by research differentiating between strategies based on their mechanisms and organizational practices, ensuring that the design addresses underlying systemic issues for long-term transformation.
Source
Questions about this research
- What does the research say about surface vs. deep strategies for driving social change?
- Choose between surface-level strategies for rapid, targeted impact or deep-level strategies for systemic, long-term societal transformation, and align project mechanisms accordingly. Evidence: Journal of Management (2016).
- Why does "Surface vs. Deep Strategies for Driving Social Change" matter for design?
- Understanding these strategic differences allows design teams to better align their projects with desired social outcomes, whether aiming for immediate, localized improvements or long-term, systemic transformations.
- How can designers apply this research?
- Choose between surface-level strategies for rapid, targeted impact or deep-level strategies for systemic, long-term societal transformation, and align project mechanisms accordingly.
- What were the main findings?
- Positive Social Change (PSC) can be understood as a transformational process.. Two distinct PSC strategies exist: surface-level and deep-level.. Surface-level strategies focus on immediate, localized changes, while deep-level strategies aim for pervasive and durable societal impact.. The choice of strategy influences the nature, speed, quality, timing, and reach of social impact.
- What research method was used?
- Conceptual framework development and literature integration.
- How strong is the evidence?
- Evidence strength is rated Moderate effect, based on a 2016 journal from Journal of Management.
- What should I do differently in my next project?
- When initiating a social impact design project, clearly define whether the goal is a quick fix or a fundamental societal shift, and select methods that support that objective.
- What are the limitations?
- The framework is conceptual and requires empirical validation across diverse organizational contexts.
- Is there evidence that social change affects design outcomes?
- Organizations can pursue social change through either 'surface' strategies, which yield quicker but less profound results, or 'deep' strategies, which foster more lasting and widespread societal improvements. Understanding these strategic differences allows design teams to better align their projects with desired socia Source: Journal of Management (2016).
- Where does this strategies research apply?
- Organizational strategy and social impact initiatives It sits within innovation & design research on designdex.org.
Related research topics
social change design research · evidence on social change · does social change improve design outcomes · strategies studies for designers · social change and strategies findings · innovation & design research evidence