Introduction
Indigenous values like those in the proverb Hēnare (Reference Hēnare, Cooke, Hill, Baskett and Irwin2014) espouses here are increasingly recognised as being more than informative for management and organisational practice; they are influential in helping small and large organisations aspire to and contribute to wellbeing inside and beyond their workplaces (Haar et al., Reference Haar, Martin, Ruckstuhl, Ruwhiu, Daellenbach and Ghafoor2021; Henry, Newth & Spiller, Reference Henry, Newth and Spiller2017; Mika & O’Sullivan, Reference Mika and O’Sullivan2014; Mika, Warren, Foley & Palmer, Reference Mika, Warren, Foley and Palmer2017; Ruwhiu, Amoamo, Ruckstuhl, Kapa & Eketone, Reference Ruwhiu, Amoamo, Ruckstuhl, Kapa and Eketone2021; Spiller, Wolfgramm, Henry & Pouwhare, Reference Spiller, Wolfgramm, Henry and Pouwhare2020). The capacity for a large-scale municipality to draw inspiration from Māori values for the way it chooses to organise its operations, respectfully engage with Māori, and support whānau wellbeing through enterprise thoroughly intrigued a team of researchers exploring the practicalities of Māori economies of wellbeing at the scale of the whānau (family) (Rout, Spiller, Reid, Mika & Haar, Reference Rout, Spiller, Reid, Mika and Haar2025; Spiller et al., Reference Spiller, Rout, Haar, Mika, Reid, Karamaina and Niu2025). Yet, this is precisely what we found upon reading about, then meeting with the people behind, The Southern Initiative (TSI), a social innovation unit inside Auckland Council. Located primarily in Manukau, a South Auckland ward of Auckland City, TSI is mandated under the Auckland Plan to improve the wellbeing of South Auckland communities, which the unit strives to do through social innovation and systemic change.
This paper presents a case study of TSI as an example of how Indigenous values can inspire social innovation and impact within mainstream organisations. The research involved kōrero (conversations) with TSI team members, reviewing organisational literature, and discerning how well prevailing organisational theory explains what we found. The paper focuses on TSI and its use of Māori values as an organising ideology for social innovation and impact. Four innovations in managerial and organisational practice are evident at TSI: (1) the functioning co-existence of social innovation and bureaucracy; (2) the efficacy of indigeneity and intrapreneurship; (3) the empowering nature of whānau-led (family-led) design methods; and (4) mana (spiritual power) as an agentive organising principle. These innovations illustrate the interconnections between Indigenous values, social innovation, and intrapreneurialism, highlighting the potential for culturally grounded frameworks to inform and transform public sector management. The case study offers insights into the pragmatism of Indigenous values for social innovation and organisational change, contributing to management theory and practice at the interface of Indigenous knowledge and social justice.
This case study results from Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga funded research under its Pae Ora (Living Well) theme called ‘He oranga whānau: mahi ngātahi, whānau livelihoods within the context of work and Māori economies of wellbeing’ (Rout, Spiller, Reid, Mika & Haar, Reference Rout, Spiller, Reid, Mika and Haar2022). The project set out to identify approaches to work and livelihood that are sustainable, collectively focused, socially just, and adaptive to environmental and social change. Given this purpose, the overall research question was simply, ‘How can whānau wellbeing be realised in everyday life?’ The theoretical framework adopted for the research is ‘Māori economies of wellbeing.’ According to Rout et al. (Reference Rout, Spiller, Reid, Mika and Haar2025), Māori economies of wellbeing can be defined as ‘locally embedded and controlled economies that prioritise collective human and nonhuman wellbeing and are built on the economic kaupapa’ (p. 2), with ‘economic kaupapa’ referring to salient characteristics of the Māori economy being ‘embedded, collective, empathetic, reciprocal, balanced, and local’ (p. 4). The project explored pathways for human flourishing at the scale of the whānau in four pou (pillars) as areas of interest: pou (leadership), pātaka (economy), pakari (resilience), and pakihi (enterprise). Te reo Māori (the Māori language) was central to the research, from which a dictionary of Māori words used in economic and business contexts was produced (Karamaina, Reference Karamaina2025); hence the use of reo Māori in this paper. This case study stems from research under one pou of the project called pakihi-ā-whānau (whānau enterprise), which set out to understand how whānau achieve sustainable enterprise (Pihama & Penehira, Reference Pihama and Penehira2005; Te Puni Kōkiri, Reference Kōkiri2013) within Māori economies of wellbeing (Hēnare, Reference Hēnare, Cooke, Hill, Baskett and Irwin2014; Rout et al., Reference Rout, Spiller, Reid, Mika and Haar2025).
Methodology
Employing a case study approach, which seeks to uncover the truth from the particularities of a singular entity at the person, organisation, or other appropriate scale (Eisenhardt, Reference Eisenhardt1989; Hephzibah Orhoevwri, Reference Hephzibah Orhoevwri, James, Adela and Mark2021; Ragin, Reference Ragin1999), the research examines how TSI supports whānau wellbeing through social innovation. A kaupapa Māori approach underpins this study, which is research ‘by Māori, for Māori, about Māori’ (Powick, Reference Powick2003; Smith, Reference Smith1992). Under kaupapa Māori principles, research is guided by tikanga Māori (Māori culture), te reo Māori (Māori language), and mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge), and seeks to be transformative and beneficial for Māori communities (Henry & Pene, Reference Henry and Pene2001; Smith & Smith, Reference Smith, Smith, McKinley and Smith2019). Kaupapa Māori is relevant because of the underlying premise that Māori knowledge, language, and culture are the most appropriate way to understand Māori phenomena, and people who identify as Māori and engage in te ao Māori (Māori society) and its development are apt researchers. Yet, non-Māori are key members of the research as co-investigators, participants, allies, and beneficiaries because of their knowledge, capability, and respect for te ao Māori. This approach aligns with principles for ethical Māori research, which emphasise the importance of whakapapa (relationships), tika (rightness), mana (dignity), and manaakitanga (care) (Hudson, Milne, Reynolds, Russell & Smith, Reference Hudson, Milne, Reynolds, Russell and Smith2010). Approval for ethical conduct in this research was received from Te Raupapa, Waikato Management School.
Two primary methods were used to gather data: first, kōrero (conversation); second, wānanga (collaborative discussion), both of which were held at TSI’s offices in Manukau. While kōrero ordinarily means ‘talk,’ ‘speak,’ or ‘conversation’ in English, in connection with research, kōrero is a culturally nuanced form of communication, where meaning and effect are found in narratives that establish identity, connections, and reduce distance (Cribb, Mika, Leberman & Bennett, Reference Cribb, Mika, Leberman and Bennett2024). Wānanga is similarly glossed as ‘discussion,’ ‘deliberation,’ or ‘learning,’ but the concept and practice of wānanga have no suitable equivalents in English to adequately convey the word’s connotation as a way of establishing shared understanding and meaning, that is, a way of ‘coming to know’ (Cribb et al., Reference Cribb, Mika, Leberman and Bennett2024). Yet, the research employed both of these Indigenous methodologies (Smith, Reference Smith2021) in the spirit of Cribb et al. (Reference Cribb, Mika, Leberman and Bennett2024), who encourage non-Indigenous organisations to do so with the support of cultural knowledge-holders and with a receptivity towards Indigenous world views.
Three kōrero were conducted with the managers and directors from TSI groups and initiatives. Each kōrero lasted approximately 60 minutes, covering participants’ perspectives on wellbeing, culture, and enterprise in their work. Throughout the kōrero, tikanga rangahau (ethical research) practices were applied, including karakia (prayer), mihimihi (introductions), whanaungatanga (relationships), aronga (world view), kaupapa (philosophy), kai (sharing food), and kōrero whakamutunga (concluding remarks) (Cribb et al., Reference Cribb, Mika, Leberman and Bennett2024). A culturally safe environment that encourages participants to share insights on matters of Indigenous enterprise is attributed to these practices (Mika & Dana, Reference Mika and Dana2021).
A wānanga was held with TSI intrapreneurs as well as associated organisations like Amotai and Uptempo representatives. The wānanga lasted approximately 2.5 hours. The wānanga included whakawhanaungatanga (sharing origin stories and establishing relationships), kohinga kōrero (sharing ideas and experiences), whakawhiti whakaaro (meaning-making through discussion), whakakapinga (reflective and future-focused kōrero), and kai. Kai is not just food for the body (Moeke-Pickering, Heitia, Heitia, Karapu & Cote-Meek, Reference Moeke-Pickering, Heitia, Heitia, Karapu and Cote-Meek2015); it symbolises the transition from a state of tapu (sacredness and caution) to a state of noa (profane and free) in te ao Māori (Mead, Reference Mead2016), especially on marae (meeting grounds) (Karetu, Reference Karetu and King1992). The overall effect of these protocols was to foster an open, respectful atmosphere, reciprocal relationships, and empower participants to share their experiences within the context of their cultural values and practices.
All kōrero and wānanga sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for accuracy. A thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo. Following the approach outlined by Clarke and Braun (Reference Clarke and Braun2017), transcripts were inductively coded, allowing themes to emerge from participants’ narratives. Additionally, the coding process followed Henry, Mika and Wolfgramm (Reference Henry, Mika and Wolfgramm2020) and their practice of mahi ngātahi (collaborative thematic analysis). Mahi ngātahi involves the team iteratively reviewing and discussing transcripts together, allowing for consensus on key insights.
The case study was shared with TSI for feedback and later presented at the 37th annual conference of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) held in Wollongong, Australia, where the paper won the ANZAM case study award (Niu et al., Reference Niu, Mika, Spiller, Haar, Rout, Reid and Karamaina2024). Feedback has strengthened the case study and inspired a continuation of the research into whānau wellbeing through enterprise, particularly with the TSI-affiliated entity Amotai. Amotai is a supplier diversity and social procurement initiative working primarily with Māori and Pacific-owned enterprises and government and corporate buyers (Malcolm, Cairns & Pouwhare, Reference Malcolm, Cairns and Pouwhare2023).
The southern initiative case study
Formation
In 2012, seven local and regional councils were amalgamated to establish Auckland Council (‘the council’) as a unified local government entity for Auckland City. The council’s first mayor, Len Brown, and his fellow councillors set an ambitious goal of making Auckland the world’s most liveable city (Auckland Burkett & Boorman, Reference Burkett and Boorman2021; Council, 2012a). Despite such bold ambition, parts of the city registered some of the highest inequality metrics in Aotearoa New Zealand. Through the advocacy of community boards in Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Manurewa, and Papakura, South Auckland became a site for targeted intervention by the council. The Southern Initiative (TSI) was the name given to this intervention, which was specifically noted and, therefore, mandated in the council’s first Auckland Plan. Soon, TSI had set an ambitious goal of its own: to enable system-level change for the wellbeing of South Auckland’s people (Burkett & Boorman, Reference Burkett and Boorman2021). The council and various stakeholders developed a multi-sector plan for TSI, with initial priorities centred on early childhood education; family education; training and employment for school leavers; economic development; public transport; and housing (Burkett & Boorman, Reference Burkett and Boorman2021). In 2024, TSI’s scope expanded to include West Auckland. Today, TSI employs more than 60 staff whose initiatives include the Auckland Co-Design Lab, Uptempo, and Healthy Families, all intended to enhance Māori and Pacific wellbeing (Burkett & Boorman, Reference Burkett and Boorman2021).
Systems-level change
TSI’s capacity as a change-maker is attributed to its leaders, including John McEnteer, Gael Surgenor, and Tania Pouwhare, who fostered a culture of social innovation within the council (Auckland Council, 2012b; The Southern Initiative, 2021a). In 2015, TSI was reorganised as a team of intrapreneurs tasked with social and economic improvement in South Auckland through systemic change (The Southern Initiative, 2021a). Auckland Council serves as an anchor institution, supporting TSI with resources and capabilities, but the group operates as a business unit of its own (Burkett & Boorman, Reference Burkett and Boorman2021).
Social procurement is a notable TSI innovation, which utilises the council’s purchasing power to promote supplier diversity (Malcolm et al., Reference Malcolm, Cairns and Pouwhare2023). For example, in 2019, the council agreed to a social procurement target of 5% in direct spending and 15% on indirect expenditure for Māori- and Pacific-owned enterprises. For procurement purposes, Māori and Pacific-owned enterprises are defined as enterprises that are at least 50% owned by Māori or Pacific peoples in the case of partnerships, companies, and other entities with dispersed ownership structures and 100% in the case of sole traders (Amotai, 2025). This definition differs from the statistical definition of Māori business, which omits reference to an ownership threshold (Mika, Hudson & Kusabs, Reference Mika, Hudson and Kusabs2023). This policy led to $4 million in new contracts and tenders worth $120 million to these firms (The Southern Initiative, 2020). This early success enabled TSI to secure $1.87 million in funding to scale up its procurement activity under an initiative called He Waka Eke Noa (The Southern Initiative, 2020). By 2023, TSI had facilitated over 150 procurements worth $308.8 million (see Table 1 for a list of other key outcomes), connecting 480 Māori and Pacific businesses through a rebranded procurement initiative called Amotai (TSI, n.d.).
Key outcomes of TSI
Source: Burkett and Boorman (Reference Burkett and Boorman2021); The Southern Initiative (2019, 2020).
Bureaucratic social innovation
Bureaucracy is traditionally presented in management theory as the ideal organisational form because of its ability to balance efficiency and effectiveness through application hierarchy and rules, particularly in stable business environments (Schermerhorn et al., Reference Schermerhorn, Davidson, Factor, Poole, Woods, Simon and McBarron2017; Weber, Reference Weber1947). In theory, bureaucracy and innovation ought to be incompatible organisational constituents. This contradiction arises because the flexibility, creativity, and risk accompanying innovation (Mulgan, Tucker, Ali & Sanders, Reference Mulgan, Tucker, Ali and Sanders2007) intuitively repel rules-based order and hierarchy (Klein & Sorra, Reference Klein and Sorra1996). Yet, the people of TSI know that innovation – especially social innovation – is essential to disrupting the power dynamics that underlie persistent societal inequity, structural disadvantage, and the uneven distribution of the consequences of market failure (Henry et al., Reference Henry, Newth and Spiller2017; Wiremu, Mika, Gillies, Smith & Ngawati, Reference Wiremu, Mika, Gillies, Smith and Ngawati2021). TSI’s ability to conduct social innovation activities within a bureaucratic structure shows that innovation and bureaucracy can co-exist, producing what we call bureaucratic social innovation. The co-existence of bureaucracy and social innovation is, however, not without tension. One senior TSI staff mentioned:
The first director got really hoha [annoyed] and left because he just couldn’t make any progress. There was just no money .. it floundered. (Participant 1)
The council’s hierarchy and size can slow decision-making, with innovation struggling for traction (Hartley, Reference Hartley2005). Despite the challenges, TSI aligned its activity with the council’s priorities to achieve continuity and impact. Reflecting on TSI’s approach to navigating these challenges, one staff stated:
You have to identify what are the things that need to happen within a large organisation, make it a strategic priority, convince with evidence, and then demonstrate it. (Participant 2)
Small-scale pilots provide evidence that social innovation can deliver real-world benefits even within risk-averse environments. An intrapreneur of TSI explained:
[We are] designing programmes to try and facilitate that pathway and looking at trying to get larger funding for their work from doing smaller pilot projects. (Participant 3)
TSI has developed a dual operating system that is structured and flexible (Robbins, Bergman, Stagg & Coulter, Reference Robbins, Bergman, Stagg and Coulter2009), balancing innovation with predictability. The hierarchy of the dual operating system supports the continuity, efficiency, and effectiveness of TSI’s operation, while its relational network provides for the rapid iteration and flexibility that social innovation requires (Burkett & Boorman, Reference Burkett and Boorman2021). Distributed leadership emphasising coherence over coordination allows small teams to experiment while staying true to TSI’s mission. The interaction between these two organisational systems allows TSI to pursue innovative projects while maintaining stability for long-term organisational success (Burkett & Boorman, Reference Burkett and Boorman2021). This finding aligns with Henry et al. (Reference Henry, Newth and Spiller2017), who argue that Indigenous social innovation is a means to explore and analyse the enduring nature of Indigenous approaches to solving social disparities.
Indigeneity and intrapreneurship
Intrapreneurship is the practice of entrepreneurship within existing organisations to develop new goods, services, processes, and markets (Antoncic & Hisrich, Reference Antoncic and Hisrich2001; Hernández-Perlines, Ariza-Montes & Blanco-González-Tejero, Reference Hernández-Perlines, Ariza-Montes and Blanco-González-Tejero2022; Tracey & Stott, Reference Tracey and Stott2016). In Indigenous communities, entrepreneurship is often conducted in a cultural context distinct from mainstream society, affording Indigenous entrepreneurs access to ways of organising rooted in their indigeneity – Indigenous world views, knowledges, identities, values, languages, and institutions – and an adaptive capacity for cross-cultural commerce (Manganda, Reference Manganda2022; Manganda, Jurado, Mika & Palmer, Reference Manganda, Jurado, Mika and Palmer2023; Mika, Felzensztein, Tretiakov & Macpherson, Reference Mika, Felzensztein, Tretiakov and Macpherson2022). TSI has made strategic use of intrapreneurship to enable small teams to innovate (Burkett & Boorman, Reference Burkett and Boorman2021), but they have done so in a way that integrates elements of indigeneity – specifically, Māori culture and values (Mika, Dell, Newth & Houkamau, Reference Mika, Dell, Newth and Houkamau2022).
Māori have some of the oldest social technologies that are still relevant, providing fresh insights into management (Haar et al., Reference Haar, Martin, Ruckstuhl, Ruwhiu, Daellenbach and Ghafoor2021). For instance, applying Māori values of manaakitanga (generosity), whanaungatanga (relationships), and tino rangatiratanga (self-determination), which resonate with other ethnic groups (Mika & Niu, Reference Mika and Niu2025), ensures that TSI’s innovations are culturally effective and empowering. For TSI, the result is an intrapreneurship that mirrors the cultural milieu of their South Auckland and West Auckland communities, fostering cultural integrity, community-focused proactiveness, networking, and collaboration (Mrabure, Ruwhiu & Gray, Reference Mrabure, Ruwhiu and Gray2021). TSI focuses on enhancing collective wellbeing and respect for the environment (Burkett & Boorman, Reference Burkett and Boorman2021), leading to culturally sustainable innovations that challenge mainstream individualism and profit-driven ideologies (Spiller, Barclay-Kerr & Panoho, Reference Spiller, Barclay-Kerr and Panoho2015). The Southern Initiative is working towards decolonising spaces, practices, methodologies, and structures while indigenising knowledge systems for systemic innovation (Burkett & Boorman, Reference Burkett and Boorman2021), which is finding credence in mainstream organisations elsewhere (Woods, Dell & Carroll, Reference Woods, Dell and Carroll2021). A staff member reflected on this transformation, stating that:
We’ve let go of design as a change or an innovation methodology. However, elements of it are useful, and we’ve returned to Indigenous systems (Participant 4)
Although intrapreneurs often experience conflict with prevailing values, TSI’s leaders have achieved a culture of inclusion. For example, TSI has adopted Niho Taniwha (the teeth of a spiritual guardian) as an evaluation framework based on mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge), which allows the organisation to be accountable to whānau and communities (Burkett & Boorman, Reference Burkett and Boorman2021). One staff member at TSI explained this approach further:
We work at [different] levels and looking at … systems, practice, and for the people that we’re working with, and going, ‘Okay, so what are the outcomes that [sit] between us, the team, and them?’ Like the people that we’re working with, what outcomes do they see that they want to achieve? (Participant 2)
Niho Taniwha integrates intrapreneurial and evaluative learning, ensuring that rapid feedback loops inform TSI’s activities and contribute to meaningful outcomes (Burkett & Boorman, Reference Burkett and Boorman2021).
Whānau-centred design
Design thinking, a hallmark of innovation, allows for rapid idea generation, prototyping, testing, and deployment of solutions (Brown, Reference Brown2008; Kickul & Lyons, Reference Kickul and Lyons2020). TSI uses design thinking for similar reasons but also modifies its method using kaupapa Māori (Māori philosophy). Māori enterprises are often entwined with family, from directly hiring whānau to family history influencing the entrepreneur (Mika et al., Reference Mika, Felzensztein, Tretiakov and Macpherson2022; Mika & Scheyvens, Reference Mika, Scheyvens, Higgins-Desbiolles, Blanchard and Urbain2023). TSI has thus devised an inclusive approach to design that places whānau at the centre of design thinking (Auckland Co-Design Lab, 2022). Whānau-centred design involves power sharing through recognition of tino rangatiratanga (Āwhina Plunket, Reference Āwhina Plunket2023). Key principles of whānau-centred design include manaakitanga – nurturing whānau within a process that acknowledges and values them; whanaungatanga – establishing authentic, meaningful relationships in culturally appropriate ways; tino rangatiratanga – whānau having the autonomy to decide when and how they will participate, as well as decision-making opportunities within the process; mana – recognising whānau are the experts in their own lives and have the ability to innovate for themselves; and ako – enabling a positive, mutually reinforcing learning space (Āwhina Plunket, Reference Āwhina Plunket2023; Burkett, Reference Burkett2017). Unlike traditional top-down, deficit-based design, where community needs might be an afterthought, this approach shifts to an empowering, strength-based model characterised by collective decision-making and action. According to one participant:
Whānau are seen as passive recipients… the government’s done stats analysis, problem definition, intervention logic programme, and say all the things that we [government] think, ‘This is the problem,’ and ‘This is what we believe the answer is.’ We created spaces where whānau would come together and do their own research, have their own kōrero, create their own insights, create their own prototypes, and then test them with the whānau .. This is really about addressing the power imbalance that happens. (Participant 4)
Developed in collaboration with Papakura Marae and the South Auckland Social Wellbeing Board, He Whānau Whānui o Papakura (He Whānau) is an example of whānau-centred design (The Southern Initiative, 2021b), which is grounded in te ao Māori (the Māori world view) (Royal, Reference Royal2003). In support of He Whānau, which seeks to engender flourishing futures for tamariki (children), TSI created culturally safe and welcoming spaces for whānau. TSI outlined expectations for agencies to show humility and respect for whānau. Consequently, whānau set the agenda, facilitated discussion using Māori values, and engaged with whānau to gather information and conduct analysis. The whānau-centred design allowed housing, employment, and healthcare to be holistically considered as interrelated issues, with solutions developed that reflect whānau needs with agency support.
Mana as an organising principle
In te ao Māori, mana has a significant role in regulating social and economic relations, reflected in the notion of an economy of mana (Hēnare, Reference Hēnare, Cooke, Hill, Baskett and Irwin2014). According to Dell, Staniland and Nicholson (Reference Dell, Staniland and Nicholson2018), an economy of mana is ‘an economic system in which decisions regarding investment, production, consumption and wealth distribution are influenced by the interplay of mana-enhancing interactions between people and the environment’ (p. 55). At an organisational level, a Māori approach to management incorporates Māori values, beliefs, and customs, including mana (Mika & O’Sullivan, Reference Mika and O’Sullivan2014). In te ao Māori, mana refers to power and authority derived from the gods, ancestors, land, and personal attributes (Mead, Reference Mead2016), signifying spiritual power and material agency (Spiller, Pio, Erakovic & Henare, Reference Spiller, Pio, Erakovic and Henare2011). In business management, mana guides people to act in ways that enhance the mana of others, thus elevating their own mana through reciprocal relations, which Mika et al. (Reference Mika, Dell, Newth and Houkamau2022) described as manahau. Mana is related to collective wellbeing, as success is measured by how well organisations enhance the mana of their communities (Spiller et al., Reference Spiller, Pio, Erakovic and Henare2011). For TSI, the economy of mana is made real because the concept shifts organisational thinking from an economic model centred solely on monetary gain to one that values human dignity, relationships, and the wellbeing of communities (Dell et al., Reference Dell, Staniland and Nicholson2018; Hēnare, Reference Hēnare, Cooke, Hill, Baskett and Irwin2014). Mana can be observed in TSI’s vision, objectives, and innovations. As one TSI staff mentioned:
Our job is how do we translate an economy of mana to meaningful, tangible actions. This is about abundance. This is about mana and enhancing mana. And that means for your workers as well. There is no mana in the minimum wage, so we don’t do minimum wage, it’s you start on a living wage, and we want to see our people up within 24 months. (Participant 1)
For another member of TSI, mana can be seen in whānau-centred design and its possibilities:
They’ve got everything they need to strive for the goals they have set for themselves, that they’re connected to their culture, they feel connected to the place that they’re in, and they feel a sense of autonomy, respect, and mana from others. (Participant 4)
Within the council, TSI uses mana as a guiding principle to navigate the bureaucracy. One manager from TSI put it this way:
I’ve got the org[anisation] chart, but who’s the power? Where is the mana network here? The people … that you need to know? (Participant 5)
Social and cultural dynamics are important in leadership, and the logic of te ao Māori provides an appreciation of the complex and pragmatic nature of leadership (Ruwhiu & Cone, Reference Ruwhiu and Cone2013). Within TSI, leadership is attributed not just to positional authority but also to one’s mana. One participant noted that:
We’ve got other people who are leaders just because they’ve got direct line managers. [TSI staff member] .. she has mātauranga [knowledge]; that for us makes her a leader, it’s her mana that makes her a leader. (Participant 1)
Mana, rather than titles alone, determines leadership. This is another unique feature in TSI as a social innovation unit infused with indigeneity and a community-minded mission.
Conclusion
TSI was established as a mandated component of Auckland Council’s strategic effort to address South Auckland’s social and economic disparities. Through a multi-stakeholder collaborative approach, TSI strives for system-level change to improve community wellbeing. This case study explores how TSI, as a social innovation unit, co-exists within a bureaucracy using a dual operating system. A networked organisation, distributed leadership, and indigeneity-infused intrapreneurship support TSI’s propensity for place-based social innovation. This is evident in TSI’s whānau-centred design. Initiatives like Amotai demonstrate how Indigenous knowledge and values can lead to scalable innovations with social impact.
Discussion questions
Question 1
What are some tensions between bureaucracy and social innovation? How did TSI navigate these tensions, and what are some useful lessons for other organisations?
Major tensions arise from bureaucracy’s inherent focus on control, which often slows decision-making processes, stifles creativity, and avoids risk. TSI navigates these tensions by aligning initiatives and projects with Auckland Council’s strategic priorities, using evidence-based pilots to demonstrate their merit. Adopting a dual operating system allows TSI to maintain stability (bureaucratic structure) and change (networked structure). Other organisations could recognise the importance of alignment between innovation and organisational goals, using small-scale projects to build support and developing leadership that champions stability and innovation within bureaucracies.
Question 2
How did TSI incorporate Māori values into its practices? What are some of the impacts of such values on its social innovation?
TSI incorporates Māori values like manaakitanga (generosity), whanaungatanga (relationships), and tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) into its operations. These values produce a culturally grounded, whānau- and community-focused approach to social innovation, exemplified in the shift from expert-led design to whānau-led design. Evaluation and learning frameworks like Niho Taniwha keep TSI accountable to whānau, communities, the council, and other stakeholders. Indigenous values lead to culturally relevant and sustainable innovations, empowering Māori and Pacific communities through recognising their cultural strengths and decolonising expert-led spaces and methodologies.
Question 3
How does TSI’s whānau-centred design differ from traditional design?
TSI’s whānau-centred design differs from conventional design by centring on whānau as active leaders across the entire design process rather than passive participants in a piecemeal fashion. This design approach prioritises whānau needs over agencies’ interests and is deeply rooted in Māori values and principles. Whānau-centred design shifts the policy development process from a top-down, deficit-based model to a place-based, strength-based, and culturally responsive design thinking model. Creating a safe space where whānau can lead discussions, conduct research, and develop solutions, with relevant agencies participating as supporters, is one way of addressing inherent power imbalances. Agencies must respect whānau leadership, adhere to Māori protocols, and value whānau contributions for this approach to work. When they do, design thinking results in strategies that exhibit equitable power sharing, which supports whānau to achieve culturally relevant and appropriate outcomes.
Question 4
What factors would influence TSI’s scalability at a national or international level?
Deep integration of Māori values in TSI’s approach poses challenges for scaling and replication. Key factors for scalability include cultural adaptability, strong leadership, cultural knowledge, and the ability to maintain the integrity of Indigenous methodologies (e.g., kaupapa Māori). Successful scaling requires significant investment in cultural competence training, establishing genuine and reciprocal relationships with Indigenous communities, and developing adaptive frameworks that consistently preserve and apply traditional values with their original meaning. Moreover, strong organisational and community leadership is crucial to balancing innovation and cultural authenticity. When combined with adequate financial and policy support, scaling TSI’s approach may be possible.
Acknowledgments
This case study would not have been possible without the insightful contributions of several individuals at The Southern Initiative (TSI). We extend our deepest gratitude to the leadership and team members of TSI, Amotai, Uptempo, and other associated organisations for their openness to sharing their knowledge and experience. We acknowledge Ngā Pae o Te Māramatanga (New Zealand’s Māori Centre of Research Excellence) for funding the research.
Xiaoliang Niu is of Han ethnicity. He was born and raised in Yangxin County, Hubei Province, China. In 2010, he moved to Aotearoa New Zealand to pursue tertiary education. Xiaoliang is currently a PhD student and research assistant at Te Raupapa | Waikato Management School. His research centres on the influence of traditional worldviews and knowledge systems on organisations’ strategies, decision-making, and practices when addressing contemporary management challenges, such as environmental sustainability. His work aims to bridge the gap between traditional wisdom and modern organisational practices, highlighting the importance of cultural understanding in today’s globalised business landscape to guide organisations towards more sustainable, culturally responsive, and socially responsible practices.
Tūhoe, Ngāti Awa, Te Whakatōhea, Ngāti Kahungunu ki te Wairoa. Jason Mika is a Professor of Māori Management and Associate Dean Māori in He Manga Tauhokohoko | University of Auckland Business School. His research, teaching, writing, and practice centres on Māori and Indigenous business philosophy and practice in multiple sites, sectors, and scales.
Chellie Spiller, Ngāti Kahungunu ki te Wairoa, is a Professor at Te Raupapa | Waikato Management School. Her research explores leadership and how businesses can create sustainable wealth and wellbeing. She is a co-author of Wayfinding Leadership: Groundbreaking Wisdom for Developing Leaders, which shows how leaders can transform organisations using mindfulness and awareness practices. After a rewarding experience as a 2022 Leader in Residence at the Atlantic Institute, Oxford University, Chellie released The Catalyst’s Way and Storytellers Companion Guide to support catalytic efforts worldwide. She manages largescale research projects into Indigenous leadership, collective leadership and decision-making, Indigenous economies, governance, diversity, inclusion and belonging, and social justice, equity and sovereignty.
Jarrod Haar, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Mahuta, is a Professor of Management and Māori Business at Massey University (Albany). His research focuses on job burnout, work–life balance, Māori employees, leadership, and innovation. He is ranked a world-class researcher (Performance- Based Research Fund, Elsevier World Top 2% of Scientists); has won industry and best-paper awards; and won multiple research grants (Marsden; Foundation for Research, Science and Technology; Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga: Māori and Work; Health Research Council; and a National Science Challenge: Science for Technological Innovation). In 2025, he leads a Marsden Fund grant – He Kaupapa Whakapakari Kaimahi Māori Hou – examining the cultural double shift amongst Māori employees. He has over 600 refereed outputs, including 158 journal articles, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi.
Matthew Rout is a Senior Research Fellow at the Ngāi Tahu Centre. He works on Indigenous socio-economic development and environmental sustainability initiatives and projects with a focus on applied outcomes through theoretical synthesis. He is part of Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga’s transdisciplinary team exploring Māori economies of wellbeing with a focus on whānau.
John Reid, Ngāti Pikiao, Tainui, Tauiwi, is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Canterbury’s Ngāi Tahu Research Centre. He leads research programmes attempting to solve complex socioeconomic problems utilising systems thinking and Indigenous wisdom traditions. He has a particular interest in relationships between human and non-human people and the role of appropriate technologies and insight in generating symbiosis between them. Currently he leads national research programmes that bring together science, industry, and Indigenous communities to address sustainability challenges related to New Zealand’s oceans, freshwater, land, and biodiversity.
Tāne Karamaina of Ngāti Whanaunga (Pare Hauraki), Ngāti Apakura (Pare Waikato), and Te Rarawa descent, born and raised in Australia, Tāne’s interests lie in the revitalisation and normalisation of te reo Māori. As a current translator for Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, with more than 10 years of experience in translation and captioning as a freelancer and for Te Karere and Pūkana, Tāne Karamaina is the author of He Rauhī Kupu, a Māori language dictionary produced as part of the Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga ‘He oranga whānau: mahi ngātahi: Whānau livelihoods within the context of work and Māori economies of wellbeing’ project.
Open access
