Diving headfirst, if a little tardily, into the machinations of the Labour leadership, it was interesting to note that Charles Clarke, in between sideswipes, had said that the difference between Blairites and Brownites was the difference between ‘social entrepreneurs’ and ‘Fabians’. According to Demos, this is his way of saying that "The [Brownites] still believe the central state is the best way of securing
equity and improving lives. The [Blairites] think that local freedom and
engagement are the better route."
As well as raising the question of whether Tony Blair is a social entrepreneur, this also seems a bit too simplistic or binary. Gordon Brown’s proclamations + support for various organisations (including ourselves) doesn’t back up this view of him as an old-fashioned centrist. There is also an argument (which Demos make) that New Labour is more interested in new ways of delivering services, rather than full-on devolution/"true" social entrepreneurship.
More interestingly, it does raise the question of whether a government minister can ever be a social entrepreneur. Social entrepreneurs do cut across sectors, so they can work in the public sector. Politicians do challenge and change the status quo at times (particularly when newly in power) but do they take risks or have enough ownership of initiatives to warrant the name? Do they have the personal attachment to the mission? Who knows, but it’s an interesting development in the use of the term, whether you agree with it or not.
For a more ‘traditional’ vision (or version) of a social entrepreneur, you can download Ashoka-famed Bill Drayton’s "Everyone a Changemaker: the ultimate vision of social entrepreneurship" here.
My experience, albeit just over 1 year, is that it is difficult to attach entrepreneur to anyone without some skin in the game (mission or money). Without this, you are likely an intra-preneur at best. I do not mean to say you cannot exhibit any of the positive traits, but it’s a different world when you go to meetings as a paid representative of an organisation (perpetually generating cash). It sharpens the mind.
Perhaps my focus is too much on compensation or “skin” and not enough on entrepreneurial spirit? But, perhaps we are confusing (in the example above) leadership with entrepreneurship? (This is not a reflection on my political views). This may be the case as Jim Collins (Good to Great) explains that good Leaders have more in common with scientists, explorers, and artists than executive style bullies. Perhaps we should watch and measure? Maybe it’s Leadership, maybe it’s entrepreneurship, or maybe it’s just a poor analogy?
Finally, do we care if people attempting to make a change in social enterprise fit any of these labels?
Thanks for raising the issue.
Todd