Last week, I discussed whether the credit crunch would have an impact (positive or negative) on the world and field of social entrepreneurship. In a post before that, I’d asked if CSR would be the first thing to be cut in times of trouble….

And the analysis continues to flow: on the one hand, there are those who claim the credit crunch will encourage more social entrepreneurs to look at their financial viability first; on the other, reduced business spending on this sector is described as ‘inevitable’ by Business in the Community, whilst others point to the lack of available credit for any type of enterprise.

Is there a ‘perfect storm’ coming for social entrepreneurs where public sector spending will be cut (due to national debt, downturn in economy, new government) and private sector credit / sponsorship will be radically reduced, and trusts + foundations will give less because of the declining value of their endowments….oh, and the public will have less to spend on retail if that’s your model.

Or has the movement made enough traction in enough areas for the majority to make it through and access the funds and support they need? Will the persistent, committed, resourceful, innovative, dynamic social entrepreneurs survive and even thrive in the hard times? Possibly….and it is they who will benefit if (and when?) this holed tanker starts to turn round. It is the time for the hard-headed side of the social entrepreneur, not just the high-minded side.

Interestingly, as Servane from Ogunte points out in this comment, it may well be those who (contrary to efficient bottom lines) invest in leadership, in soft skills, networking and communication that do best. Never has there been a greater need to differentiate and communicate why it should be you / your organisation, and never a greater need for leadership, or strong relationships. Or, to continue the laboured ‘storm / tanker’ metaphor, for inspired captaincy on the bridge to hold it all together.

One of SSE’s strengths over the past decade or more has been its adherence to both a central mission (supporting and developing social entrepreneurs in order to etc etc) and a central product (long-term action learning, practitioner-led, and peer-networked programmes, involving a variety of different interventions). This has given the organisation clarity of focus, and a well-refined, improved and robust product offering: a proven methodology that is replicating around the UK (am just back from Penzance!).

But the flipside to that clarity and focus is that it can affect flexibility, the ability to change with the times and, to an extent, the ability to seize a varied range of opportunities. This isn’t totally the case with SSE, as our work has, if anything, become more and more relevant over time….and the programme appeals to a wide range of audiences. Nevertheless, I have been frustrated recently looking at other organisations who, seemingly, go for anything vaguely in this sector….decisions that are clearly powered by pound signs, not purpose.

When doing Myers-Briggs or Belbin-type team analysis, a key person is the ‘values holder’…the person(s) who is principled and helps keep an organisation focused on its mission. The person who will discuss and debate with those who are pushing for a more diversified / entrepreneurial route. Ideally, those debates end up at a healthy central position between the two. But there are a few organisations for whom the values holders seem to have (literally) left the building. Or whose lack of clarity about their product / specialism is actually beneficial because it means they can shape themselves (or a work programme) to fit any tender, application or proposal. And this is, arguably, particularly the case in the social enterprise / entrepreneurship world where the primacy of the financial and social missions is less evident.

I’m not normally a fan of management tools and frameworks, but I am a fan of the old mission-money matrix. The one below comes from Fieldstone Alliance’s Tools You Can Use:

I particularly like the imagery here….obviously the ideal is everything falls in the ‘star’ category, but the reality is often activities dotted in all three (heart, star, cash) categories. If you’re doing anything that loses you money and has nothing to do with your mission, then please stop now, as the sign suggests.

What’s important in using this simple tool to evaluate business development choices is to have clarity of mission first and, ideally, clarity about how you’re measuring that impact. Otherwise, financial sustainability can naturally become the pre-eminent force, and you end up with organisations sustaining themselves in order to….well… sustain, rather than in order to achieve the social impact / mission that prompted their establishment.

Of course, this is a balance, as I’ve discussed before. And money remains of utmost importance…….but importance as a means to achieving social change, not in and of itself. And, ultimately, drifting off mission will have medium-to-long term effects: staff leaving, internal disputes, diminution of credibility in any one field/area, reputational damage from competition at all costs and so forth. Drifting starts with rapid movement and a swirl of activity….but soon forms into a frozen, stationary mass.