Category Archives: Entrepreneurship

Activist or Entrepreneur: the dual identity of social entrepreneurs

Posted on by

Paul Light’s ongoing research into social entrepreneurs (or, the chapters appearing on the blog) provides much of interest for those in the sector. The latest post discusses the dual identity of social entrepreneurs, which a US paper divides into “entrepreneur” or “activist” (Simms/Robinson 2005)

Their theory is that, although these two identities (and possibly others) co-exist in social entrepreneurs, they must decide which of them comes first. The hypothesis is then that those who choose the “activist” to be primary will end up creating non-profit organisations, while those who choose the “entrepreneur” to be primary are more likely to create for-profit organisations. This seems a bit simplistic (is it really a simple choice between “profiting from a problem or contributing to a solution”?) and it might be argued that there is perhaps more of a continuum with activist at one end and entrepreneur at the other….(which would dovetail with our view of social entrepreneurs operating across various sectors).

What is curious to me is that the authors of the paper, and Light himself, separate out social impact and financial independence:

“The perceptions of benefits and risk [for social entrepreneurs] are driven by very different
goals—i.e., income and financial independence or social impact and
recognition.”

Well, yes and no (on a day to day/short term basis) but the amount of social impact to be had will be directly related to the sustainability/ongoing financing of the organisation. So financial independence is directly related to social impact (the goals are twinned), and to separate the two in this way seems slightly simplistic. Ultimately, what is being talked about is the old mission matrix which has CORE MISSION to FAR FROM MISSION along one axis, and £LOW to £HIGH on the other axis. You then plot different replica orologi activities/projects/opportunities against it, taking current situations into account.

The activist-entrepreneur continuum is an interesting way to think about that combination of social mission and financial independence, though…..

Share Button

Demos, Orange and Working Progress

Posted on by

DemosIt’s not often I find myself at the same event as Digby Jones, Director General of the CBI, but such was the case this morning at the launch of the Orange-sponsored Demos report, Working Progress, part of their Organisational Literacy programme. The research focuses on how young people and organisations (workplaces) can be reconnected, arguing that, currently, there is a significant and damaging disconnect between them.

While some of the findings might not seem revelatory to those working in learning and people development, there are some interesting findings and recommendations that are relevant to both the support and training for social entrepreneurs (who are often future employers and/or employees) and to the importance of values-led business in the 21st century.

– 88% of British employees think it is important that the organisation they work for is committed to living its values; only 45% believe that their employer does

– creativity and innovation are the skills that most business people think will be most important in 2010, followed by flexibility/multitasking, communication (of ideas), and problem-solving

– in 1983, 35% of people judged an organisation primarily by the quality of its products, while 15% judged it by its honesty and integrity; in 2006, the respective figures were 19% (quality product) and 21% (honesty/integrity) [NB – worth noting that profitability rose from 11% to 18% in the same period]

– organisations should recognise work-life balance as a skill (or set of skills) to be taught, and performance against that skill to be monitored as with other areas

– that peer-to-peer support and networks are increasingly important for current and future employees

– the Government should introduce a "skills portfolio" to help capture some of the learning, skills and aptitudes that are often not reflected in traditional qualifications

In social entrepreneurship terms, for example, we can point to our focus on making a practical project the focus/vehicle for learning (achieving those skills that employers want), on our emphasis on peer support and peer-learning networks, on our measurement of work-life balance as a skill that people need, and on the relevance and timeliness of values-led, more-than-profit organisations. The SSE, indeed, features as a case study in the research for its pioneering work with peer-led action learning and mentoring.

Demos/Orange were looking at this very much in terms of young people but, as was pointed out in the discussion, learning now takes place at all ages and in all areas, many of which are outside traditional educational institutions. So there are interesting lessons, perhaps, for learning providers considering how well we are supporting/training people not only to deliver on their own goals and establish their own initiatives, but also how well we are preparing them for the wider world at work.

Judging from this report, and our own experience, the answer would seem to be "pretty well". When one considers that employers will be seeking values-led, flexible, innovative, problem-solving, multitasking individuals, social entrepreneurs should have a rosy future, be they within or without larger organisations.

As for the event, Digby Jones inevitably caused a stir by banging on about numeracy and literacy, the need for efficiency in the public sector, and what the private sector can bring to the public and voluntary sector (without recognising the vice versa); his unanswered question was, with reference to work-life balance, "can we have it all?" The other speakers, including Kevin Steele, chief exec of Enterprise Insight [who had some big, hairy questions as well: What is education for? (discuss the elephant in the room!) and Does education take too long?] and Wes Streeting (VP of NUS), were inevitably somewhat overshadowed but the whole report made for valuable discussion and, at least on one table, pretty heated debate.

Share Button

Entrepreneurs are born, not made? Second born maybe

Posted on by

According to US-UK research, our genes determine whether we are more likely to be entrepreneurial / likely to become self-employed. About half of an individual’s propensity to become self-employed is apparently from genetic factors, with the other half being made up of chance events or random meetings (though presumably there are people more likely to seize opportunities and take those chances?).

How did they find this out? By using identical twins as a means of research:

“researchers looked at whether one twin being an entrepreneur increased the chance of their co-twin becoming an entrepreneur.By comparing the difference in similarity rates between
identical and non-identical twins they are able to establish the
importance of genetic and environmental factors. The similarity rate within the identical twins group was
greater than for the non-identical twin group which suggests that genes
are important.”

The professor behind the research, Tim Spector, said that “”The research is important for business schools and
employers who in the future could identify ways of selecting those who
were most likely to succeed.” The SSE already recruits on the basis of entrepreneurial characteristics, personal qualities, life experience and ‘knowing the market’ (aka being engaged with/understanding the community they are golden goose falsas aiming to serve), so perhaps we are heading this way already. DNA testing probably a little way off, though….

Oh, and lest we forget, if you are a second-born, you might be more likely to be a better entrepreneur: check out this article which interviews Ben Dattner, who has a doctorate in organisational and industrial  psychology. Snippet:

“Second-borns have a lot of the classic entrepreneur personality traits: they’re creative, risk-taking, flexible, and more likely to embrace new paradigms than first-borns are. They’re also more relationship-focused, more concerned about fairness and justice, less academic and more interested in the international scene than their older siblings”

Share Button

The Past, Present and Future of Social Entrepreneurship

Posted on by

How delightful it is to forget that you’ve signed up to a newsletter, and then receive something hugely apposite and useful in your inbox.

Such was my experience this morning reading the latest e-correspondence from CASE (the Centre [or Center] for Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship at Duke University) in the States. Too much to mention in detail, but you can access the whole newsletter here.

Most interesting to me was the interview with Greg Dees, probably the longest-serving and most influential of those studying and researching social entrepreneurship in an academic sense. The interview, which is titled ‘The Past, Present and Future of Social Entrepreneurship’ inevitably has a US leaning, but is hugely relevant to UK matters as well. Take this, for example, on the issues of defining ‘social entrepreneur’:

"Well, we’re going to continue to encounter some disagreement, because the term “social entrepreneur” is relatively new and evolving, but disagreement is not the same
as confusion. People get frustrated because there is no uniform
and unanimous definition, but keep in mind that even the term “entrepreneur”
has no one definition that’s accepted by all the people who
study it. And it has been around for hundreds of years. Some people
think that anyone who starts a business is an entrepreneur. Others
who follow Joseph Schumpeter think you have to be an innovator who
is changing the patterns of production. Some focus only on high-growth, major-impact entrepreneurs; others focus on anyone who starts any
venture. This has not inhibited the growth of entrepreneurship in practice or as a field of study. As long as we understand the spirit
of the term, we can move forward constructively. And I say this
as someone who has tried to define the term in a way that would
appeal to a broad audience.
            

My own feeling is that “social entrepreneur” conveys
the idea of somebody who is highly energized and determined to achieve
impact; who perceives opportunities; who pursues them in an innovative
and resourceful way; who is not bound or stuck by sector boundaries
but willing to use whatever tools are likely to get the job done, including business tools. My feeling is that entrepreneurship lies
in behavior: how innovative and resourceful people are, their willingness
to do what it takes to have the impact, and their determination
to make it happen. This kind of behavior can happen in many venues
and on many levels, on a small or a large scale.

Some people seem to want to restrict the term “social entrepreneur” to those who meet the strict criteria that their organizations use to decide on some major award, fellowship, or grant. To me, this
is like restricting the term “author” to people who
get a major literary prize. I think it would be great for this movement
to embrace social entrepreneurship in neighborhoods, communities, and schools, not just on a national or international scale. A couple
of weeks ago, I spoke with some high school kids in Louisville who
were exhibiting all the behaviors I associate with social entrepreneurship,
but focused on recycling in the local community. They would not
get an Ashoka fellowship, a Skoll Foundation award, membership in
the Schwab Foundation network, or funding from New Profit, but I still see them as social entrepreneurs. I think our movement is
enriched, not diluted, by opening the doors. We should embrace and
encourage social entrepreneurship of different forms, degrees, and
levels."

Excuse the length of quotation, but it struck me as so resonant and relevant both to our work and the social entrepreneurship (and social enterprise) sector in the UK, that it was warranted. Read the original piece for more nuggets of wisdom….

Share Button

Entrepreneurial leadership: leadership as relationship

Posted on by

Social Enterprise Magazine features a piece by the Chair of SSE, Charlotte Young, on the emotional dynamics of leadership, specifically ‘entrepreneurial leadership’. Some interesting points about how entrepreneurs work, what drives them, how they can be assisted and supported, and so forth.

One key statement is that "leadership [is] better thought of as an active and purposeful
relationship, supported by the activities which enhanced levels of
motivation and focused direction so as to mobilise the enterprise’s
supporters towards a goal".

Leadership as relationship also reminds me of David Robinson’s book, Unconditional Leadership, which is a worthwhile read for any budding social entrepreneur (or leader in any context).

Share Button