Abstract
There is much to be learned from a membership-based organization that has survived for over 300 years and both delivered and supported the institutionalization of wide-scale social innovations for the public good. In a detailed historical analysis, Anton Howes, who describes this organization as being ‘in a category of its own’ (p. xi), presents the intriguing evolution of the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (‘the Society’). He details its magnificent successes as well as its many failures in generating, legitimizing and helping to embed social innovations at scale at a national level. Drawing on the organization’s archives and other historical sources, Howes takes readers into the coffee houses of the 18th century where ideas about how to address science’s worsening public reputation were discussed, along with how to unite Britain’s upper and middle classes in a common patriotic cause – that cause, perhaps surprisingly, being to redirect private interests to the benefit of the public. In this way, we could consider the Society a ‘national improvement agency’. In form, it is voluntary and subscription-funded to this day. And while the role of high art in improving the nation’s morals may not be front of mind in Britain today, the organizational insights into how to foster creativity, invention and design, and how to cultivate institutional infrastructure to drive systems change for social impact, make this a very worthy read for organizational scholars.
Chapters 1 and 2 set the scene for the emergence of the Society, in an era where knowledge seemed to advance every day, with scholars sending letters around the world ‘in an active pursuit and sharing of knowledge’ (p. 1). This Baconian programme, drawing on Sir Francis Bacon’s inductive method of developing scientific knowledge and reasoning through observation, was focused on accumulating knowledge with a promise of eventual material improvement. It was supported by a growing ‘associational world’, in which scientists and philosophers would meet to share and diffuse knowledge. But with the Baconian promise of material and practical improvements seemingly not being delivered, discussions emerged (across Britain) as to what new institution would be required to achieve this goal. After various early attempts, the Society emerged with a mission to investigate not only works of nature but also of human endeavour, i.e. ‘all useful arts, manufactures, mechanical practices, engines and inventions, as well as agriculture’, compiling a register of best practices and inventions, and trialling new ideas.
The Society devoted itself to the application of knowledge, on the basis that ‘the best way to defend natural philosophy was to apply it to practical purposes’, ‘stressing science’s usefulness as a way to gain public support’ (p. 8). In a way, this echoes current scholarly debates around delivering research with social impact and conducting engaged scholarship. Importantly, an organizational model emerged for the Society that remains close to its current model – a subscription-based membership. The process of the Society arriving at this organizational model as its preferred form was driven by William Shipley, who conceived the idea of a fund that could be used to ‘solve any and all of the public’s problems’, harnessing self-interest for the public good through the use of incentives. Shipley convinced a few aristocrats to donate two guineas per year to address challenges they identified for ‘man-kind’ and also for national problems. ‘It seemed to Shipley that the arts and sciences progressed in proportion to the rewards they received, and so emerged the idea of offering cash prizes for solving problems. . .as well as for supporting the arts’ (p. 21). Thus, members would contribute fees and cash prizes toward the fund, and in return receive reputational gains for doing so; over time this increased the status and interest in membership, and consequent reach of the Society’s work and its viability.
Despite Shipley’s leading role in the organization’s form, he also created an organization ‘over which he had no control’ (p. 21), his vote being worth as much as anyone else’s. He also welcomed women as members from the start, ‘seeing no reason why women would be any less patriotic or public spirited than men’ (p. 22). However, given that meetings were held in male-dominated coffee houses – considered unsuitable establishments for women – Howes notes there is little evidence of how involved women were in these early days.
Chapters 3 and 4 provide insights into the Society’s organizational transformation. An early focus of the Society was developing incentive systems to change behaviours and break up industry monopolies. For example, cash incentives that involved paying premiums to farmers to plant faster-growing types of timber compared to current monopolies, and awarding medals to attract (the vanity of) wealthy landowners, resulted in over 60 million trees being planted over the course of a century. Yet, in time, the Society came to realize that paying premiums to incentivize national creativity was not as effective as a system of patents. As patenting was time-consuming and expensive, the Society instead focused on attracting inventions that might not otherwise be supported by the patent system, or people who were too poor to afford patents. It published descriptions of inventions, showed working models, developed catalogues of inventions and hosted exhibitions to inform the public; it became focused on the diffusion of knowledge rather than direct subsidies.
In this way, the Society emerged as a central broker across industries and source of systemic innovation, gaining expertise in a range of industries, its members being Britain’s best engravers, artists, printers, mechanics and inventors. This made the Society ‘the ideal organization to seek solutions to problems that required more than one specialisation’ (p. 84). It could combine the expertise of different professions to solve more complex problems, such as the issue of currency forgery, by combining art and industry in service to the public. It was an organization that could broker expertise, develop cross-sector collaborations, and so more readily take action on what we would perhaps describe today as ‘grand challenges’ (Ferraro, Etzion, & Gehman, 2015).
Chapters 5 to 9 provide rich and detailed examples of how the Society approached systems change and mass diffusion of knowledge as a means of improving life for the masses. Through a detailed historical account of one significant leader of the Society, Henry Cole, we learn how the Great Exhibition, with the support of Prince Albert, came to fruition and then how the phenomenon spread around the world. This original festival of ideas, art, design and industrial manufacturing aimed to inspire and showcase innovation and design for the masses, on a national, and later international, scale. In London, the Great Exhibition attracted over six million visitors when it opened in 1851, a tenth of the population at the time.
Across these chapters, supplemented with wonderful artefacts retrieved from the archives of the Society, Howes shows how the Society continued to be an organization that acted as a platform for systems change, brokering connections to solve problems and cultivating institutional infrastructure (Hinings, Logue, & Zietsma, 2017). One of its most successful systemic changes was to dramatically (and finally) simplify the intellectual property system, which had been a notoriously expensive and time-consuming (38-step) process; another was in establishing a system of copyright for works of art. The Society also lobbied for an international postage system, and other cross-national harmonization and standardization efforts in customs systems, international travel (specifically through the Channel), and commercial laws, weights and measures. In Britain, it played a role in diffusing science and design to the masses, transforming the original idea of mechanics institutes into a system of industrial education. The Society also focused on creating local versions of itself throughout the colonial empire, fostering an exchange of information (albeit mainly to the benefit of Britain rather than the colonies), and increasing membership outside of Britain. It increased its focus on policies and culture in other parts of the colony, using its now famous lecture series in London to convey information and understandings of what was happening in the colonies. One successful project, the impact of which can still be seen today, is in the preserving of old buildings and recognizing architectural design, leading to the blue plaques seen today on buildings across London.
And yet, disseminating knowledge for the public good was not without its organizational challenges. Indeed, in Chapters 10 to 12, Howes goes into great detail about how the Society developed ‘a debilitating obsession with its own status’ (p. 217) which challenged its viability and sustainability. Nor was the Society immune from the rise of managerialism and professionalism. Although the organization brought in more professionally trained staff and executives, and eventually a CEO, this conflicted with the Council’s efforts to sustain what had become, arguably, an elitist, exclusive club. Chapter 10 is aptly entitled ‘A Society of Snobs’ as it details the focus of the Society on maintaining a royal connection, extending membership to monarchs around the world and, for that matter, to anyone who was considered distinguished (by the Council). In 1914 it allowed its members to call themselves Fellows like other learned societies, even though members were (and are) simply subscribers. Membership composition came to reflect the growth of government and corporate bureaucracies of the 1960s to 1990s, with members increasingly drawn from civil society, middle management, and directors of companies; ‘people most keen to improve their status’ (p. 243).
The organization also legally changed form, becoming a registered charity with the introduction of new charities regulations in 1963. This meant that it could not exclude the public from use of its library or coffee shop. To maintain financial viability, it increasingly accepted donations and bequests, and purchased a building (that has become a key asset in its financial survival in recent decades).
During the following decades, the Society remained focused on systems change, but it went about it differently. It looked at how it could tweak existing systems, on the understanding that minor changes can have greater effects given system interdependencies. The concern for the environment also increased, in parallel with the environmental movement itself, especially with the patronage of the Society by Prince Philip. Interestingly, the Society’s work contributed to a changed meaning of the term to consider not only the natural environment but the impact of modern development on the environment. The Society importantly convened different and conflicting interest groups with a view to finding solutions. Through field configuring events they sought to connect actors by holding conferences on the impact of industrialization on the countryside for example, and bringing together different and conflicting interest groups with a view to finding solutions; ‘where else would you find Greenpeace sitting down at the same dinner table as Shell?’ (p. 303).
The final chapters delve into the most recent years of the Society. It became closer to industry and business in the time of Thatcher and mass worker strikes, as prominent members sought to counter an anti-industry feeling, it ditched some quaint but emblematic routines such as the tea trolley service and addressing letters with ‘Esquire’, and became more open to new ideas. It cancelled its role in administering technical examinations, bringing about a self-inflicted financial crisis, and instead focused on using its building in London as a conference venue and restaurant. It began to refer to itself as ‘RSA’, ‘reflecting a new trend among businesses for short logos’ (p. 285).
Significantly, its members, who were leaders of industry and business, decided to establish a project to reform business practices and clarify the role of managers. They published a report entitled ‘Tomorrow’s Company’ outlining ethical guidelines businesses should adopt. It was published in 1995, probably one of the earlier professional moves to consider stakeholder capitalism more seriously. But while they all agreed with these principles, in practice they felt constrained by shareholders.
The most recent CEO (until he stepped down in 2021) reinvigorated the Society again and made it a site of radical experimentation. Rather than merely subscribers, the CEO saw the members as a global asset, with the potential to create mass movements. He encouraged them to collaborate, and offered ‘catalyst grants’ for their proposed ideas: this to ‘refocus on convening different interests and persuading people to act, verse just calling for things to happen’ (p. 311). As a result, it has become an organization, Howes writes, ‘increasingly devoted to discussing new theories about organization, the nature of society, and the way people’s minds work – things that needed to be understood in order to better harness the society’s members as activists’ (p. 311). The latest iteration of the Society aims to become not a mother of other societies but a mother of other charities and movements, ‘changing the way people think, the things they value, and thus the way they act’ (p. 315).
This is the power of a membership-based organization that bridges disciplines and uses its convening power to foster conversation and understanding across conflicting interests. An organization that generates innovation in the pursuit of the public good is an organizational form that is greatly needed today. For all our theorizing about cross-sector collaborations, grand challenges, diffusion of knowledge, social innovation and boundary spanning (Creed, Gray, Höllerer, Karam, & Reay, 2022; Logue, 2019), the Society is an intriguing example of an organization that has sought to do just that for over 300 years and continues to do so. Its evolution also provides valuable insights for current debates on the need for engaged scholarship, research translation and the role of public institutions (such as universities and their research centres) in generating knowledge and innovations for the public good (Hoffman, 2021). This historical review, of its successes and failures, its organization and organizing, provides a stunning account of systems change, institutional infrastructure and processes of social innovation. It also demonstrates the value of organizational transformation and leadership, over centuries, that takes seriously the role of both natural and social sciences in the pursuit of social impact and change.
