Category Archives: Learning

Death, sex and doughnuts (learning from experience)

Posted on by

One of the best things about travelling overseas for work (and there are plenty of downsides too) is the people you end up meeting. Often, strangely, this is not the people in the country you are visiting, but the people coming out from the UK for the same event. Indeed, some of my best UK networking has happened overseas.

The same was true on the recent trip to China, where I was part of a delegation including people from the Young Foundation, NCVO's Compact Team, the Office of the Third Sector (including Anne McGuire, the new government adviser on third sector innovation), the British Council, and the Welsh Assembly. It was fascinating to learn over dinner (and the odd drink) about their various experiences which had led them to this point, which ranged from conducting research on doughnuts (and why they are big sellers in Colombia and Saudi Arabia), reading articles on the sex lives of armadillos, and seeing behind the scenes at crematoria. Not hugely relevant to social entrepreneurship, you might think (and indeed, you might be right) but there is something about freeing up your brain and getting outside experience that brings you back to the organisation with fresh eyes and ideas. And about other people (with equally fresh eyes) asking questions about your work and your organisation from different fields and sectors that challenges and causes you to think anew about your work.

And about death, sex and doughnuts, of course.

Share Button

What the Iraq War can teach you about strategic planning

Posted on by

Fiasco
Just as optimism reigns in the US, I've been reading about arguably its darkest days of recent times in the Iraq War. Fiasco by Thomas Ricks (a US journalist on the Washington Post) details the build-up to the war, the invasion, the insurgency, and the reconstruction efforts in fascinating detail. It's not an easy read and has left me, by turns, angry, frustrated, depressed but also uplifted, inspired and amazed. So what relevance to this blog and the world of social entrepreneurs? Well, a couple of things really stood out to me:

1) The first is the emphasis the military in the US places on learning (from mistakes). That may sound a bit bizarre, given that Iraq is largely viewed as a Vietnam repeat and, at least to start with, a case study in how not to carry out a counterinsurgency. Time and again, though, senior military figures give realistic assessments of what is happening / going wrong, and highlight what needs to be done to change this: and much of this is done publicly in workshops / publications / speeches and so forth. This happens throughout the first five years of the war, and the military's ability to be honest with itself, to highlight errors (and successes) and incorporate those into its future operations has been crucial in improving (eventually) its performance there. This doesn't apply to all, of course; some of the most senior figures involved consistently made out that Iraq was in a better state than it was, and continue to delude (or contradict) themselves to this day.

2) The second was about strategic planning. Ricks argues that the failure in Iraq was primarily one of strategic planning (or the lack of therein). Firstly, there was a lack of realism (if only their goals had been SMART) and a lack of consistency: their grounds for going to war were based on a worst-case scenario (i.e. Iraq has loads of WMD, Saddam works with Al-Qaeda, the US is under threat) while their plans for the occupation / reconstruction were based on a best-case scenario (we'll be welcomed as liberators, and the country's in an alright state etc).

Secondly, there was a lack of clarity over the actual objective of the invasion: was it about finding WMDs, was it about removing Saddam, was it about regime change, was it about introducing democracy to Iraq, or to the wider Middle East? (some would add, of course, was it about oil?) and so on; and it shifted as the politics demanded it. This was hugely confusing and bewildering for the troops on the ground, because each of these goals requires different operational activity, different tactics and so on. If you are unclear about your mission, how can you decide how you are going to get there and achieve it? How can you make decisions between where you apply resources (and how many are needed)?

Thirdly, there was a lack of planning in and of itself. Phase IV (the reconstruction) didn't have an overall plan in place when people arrived in Baghdad to start, whereas Phase III (the invasion) had been planned and war-gamed to within an inch of its life. 

Fourthly, the US Army had not done its homework on insurgency and counterinsurgency as a whole (though individual commanders had knowledge of, say, Vietnam or Algeria, and applied it appropriately), nor on experiences of occupation. They only started to bring in this learning 2-3 years in, in a formalised way (via pre-Iraq training etc).

Finally, there was also confused leadership / ownership between the State Department (Rumsfeld et al) and the military in Washington, and between the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the Army in Iraq. From Ricks' account, this caused untold problems at every level of operations.

So, lessons from the Iraq disaster?

– do your research (it may not involve Vietnam or Algeria, but is necessary)
– a plan is important (entrepreneurs are prone to action, but a thought-through plan is crucial)
– get clear on your overall objective / vision and ensure it is clear to everyone else involved
– be realistic in your planning, rather than overly pessimistic or optimistic
– be clear about leadership and autonomy over particular areas (and who has the final say over what)
– be open to learning, honest about mistakes and constantly try to improve

Not a bad checklist for a social entrepreneur, or for the new US President to insist on the next time someone suggests a military invasion…..

Share Button

Statistics, damn statistics…and lies

Posted on by

I mentioned in my review of Made to Stick (incidentally, they have a website about it here) the other day about statistics giving credibility, but often inducing glazed eyes and heavy eyelids. But, in the broader area of evaluation and measurement, they are incredibly important in this sector.

I had a great conversation with Steve Lawrence (founder of Work Ventures in Australia) at the SSE residential recently about the SSE evaluation, and how we can seek to extend and improve upon that work. You can find and download a full 100+ page copy of the report in the Outcomes and Impact section of the main website…and an exec summary version as well. One challenge we talked about was how much of the nuance and detail you lose when boiling this stuff down to headlines. A few times, Steve mentioned different things he was interested in, only for me to say that some of them were in the 100+ page version, but not the shorter exec summary; or had been in an earlier version and then cut. I'd love everyone to read that full report, as it gives such a rounded view of SSE programmes and their various outcomes. It also has more on the evaluation process, such as how we tried to provide incentives / anonymous responses (in order to get a good cross-section of participants), how we also used the process to empower SSE students and Fellows to use evaluative tools, and so forth. But, ultimately, the highlights are incredibly important organisationally because of people's time, and their need to grasp something swiftly. And simple, concise points do that. Balancing that with the need to give as full and holistic picture as possible is one challenge for those heading up evaluative work. (And, lest we forget, to improve and develop internally as an organisation from that learning).

You can see something of the same debate in the SROI vs. social auditing argument. See this exceprt from the Social Enterprise Magazine article linked to above:

"Where there are impacts which can be easily ‘financialised', like
people moving off benefits into work, by all means use SROI. But there
will always be impacts which are difficult to attribute reasonably in
this way. In these cases how people think and feel is important and
social audit methods will be more appropriate"

Not quite the 'highlights' vs. 'holistic' wrangle, I'm talking about, but it is about that same sense of crunching something down and losing something of the reality and totality of it all. But, as Craig Dearden-Phillips puts it in a typically provocative column, the sector can't rely on anecdotal evidence either:

"For years we have got away with being the sector of great anecdotes.
When asked about the difference we make, we often bang on about our
best-ever success or offer improbable statistics that would do a
Soviet-era government proud ("our two staff provide services for
267,000 people" and so on). In a tougher climate, those who properly
measure and prove impact will thrive while those who bleat that it's
all too difficult will sink."

I agree with this, and make sure we introduce evaluation, impact measurement, outcomes, and all the rest of it to our students while their projects are at an early stage. So much easier to build it in at the start than try and retrospectively collect and analyse….

Having said that, the masters of the twisted statistic remain the retail sector. The current Flora Buttery advert has Gary Rhodes offering crumpets to people around the country: one with Lurpak Spreadable butter on, and one with Flora Buttery on. The whole ad is based around the fact that "more people said they preferred Flora". At the bottom of the screen (as with the classic shampoo ads), the "proof" pops up. In this case, it has 200 people who were asked, of whom 48% preferred Flora…..and 45% preferred Lurpak. With 7% having no opinion. That's 96 people for Flora, 90 for Lurpak and 14 for neither. So, yes, in a one-off exercise conducted by Flora with 200 people, 6 more out of those 200 preferred Flora to another brand. In my humble opinion, that proves absolutely nothing….do another 20 tests with the public, independently, and not conducted by a celebrity chef driving a Flora van with a crumpet on top…and then I might be swayed. (Mis)using statistics like that is why people say things like this:

"Statistics are the triumph of the quantitative method, and the quantitative method is the victory of sterility and death" (Hillaire Belloc)

and, more poetically,

"Like dreams, statistics are a form of wish fulfillment" (Jean Baudrillard)



Share Button

Back in the game: a returning news and info round-up

Posted on by

Hello everyone: a big welcome back from the SSE blog. We’ll start back in traditional fashion with a round-up of everything that’s been going on in the world of social entrepreneurship and enterprise in the past few weeks.

– For the geeky web 2.0ers amongst you, How Sociable will tell you how well your brand is represented on the social web. What more could a blogger want…. (thanks to Beth for this)

– Can you smell a rat? No, but they can smell a landmine apparently. And now they can smell the money: £500,000 worth of it for this rodent-loving social entrepreneur.

– Are you a sneaky rat yourself? Try this online ethical test for your moral DNA…

– Patrick Butler had an interesting piece in yesterday Society Guardian about Jamie Oliver / school dinners….but more generally about lone heroes bringing about social change (or not). Well worth a read, particularly for the complexities of measuring and attributing success and the need for catalysts.

– I totally identified with this post by Mike Chitty:

"Enterprise is not about business and entrepreneurship.
It is not about premises, finances, business plans and swots.
It is a process for human development.
It is a way of exploring:

  • who I am,
  • what my potentials are/might be, and
  • the kind of future that I could create.

It is way of living – of becoming.
Enterprise can be a catalyst, a framework, for the emergence of identity."

– CICs are back in the news (stay awake at the back), with two CIC CEOs setting up a CIC association to provide support and representation to all those CICs out there. There’s a fairly equivocal statement from the Coalition in response, but given their recent call for more promotion of the structure, they must surely see this as a good thing. Certainly, the meagrely-resourced regulator does….

– This year’s FOOTSEY event in Yorkshire looks like being even bigger and better than last year’s, which I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed. I’ll be trying to get back up to God’s country for this one as well, so see you there….

– Someone mentioned £300m being taken from the RDA regeneration budgets to fund the new housing initiative to me today. Will try and find a link soon enough: unclear what the ramifications may be region-by-region

– Good to see Social Enterprise Ambassador, SSE expert witness and all round good guy Craig Dearden-Phillips nominated in the most admired chief exec category in the Third Sector awards. And to see him having an entertaining debate with the publisher of his own book….

– Also, much SSE news forthcoming: a new programme in the East Midlands starting in October; a new SSE in Cornwall starting formally soon; and a new publication to be launched next week. I know your breath is bated now; more soon.

– Finally, the hot question of the week: are you a changer, a contributor, or a coaster?

Till next time….

Share Button

Empowerment and confidence

Posted on by

A couple of things stood out in the social entrepreneurship field in the past week or so. the first was the launching of the Empowerment White Paper from Department of Communities and Local Government, expertly chronicled and tracked by their secondee Simon Berry (check out the EWP Pageflake for example). Two relevant funding streams in this: a £70m Community Builders fund, which seems to be an amended, reduced version of the previously proposed ‘community anchors’ fund (a large proportion is capital). There is also a £7.5m which is a reworked version of the withdrawn Strategic Partners fund. Particularly pleased to see the emphasis here on the individual, and on practical action (one of the principles of the paper is "within the third sector, we recognise and celebrate the role of individual active citizens, social entrepreneurs, campaigners, volunteers and political activists…these people deserve the support and recognition of government").

Alongside that launch, there was the release of the new Social Entrepreneurship Monitor (as was), now simply called Social Entrepreneurship in the UK. (pdf download available from this page). In the past, the SEM has been a largely finger-in-the-air exercise in how it comes to its figures, but this report seems really well-thought through and researched. Includes case studies for the first time, and some interesting (and helpful) delineations of various terms. As with previous reports, it emphasises that "social entrepreneurs are not as confident as their mainstream counterparts….and do appear to be less confident as their activity becomes more established". This has always been something SSE has focused on (88% of SSE Fellows have an increase in skills and confidence to lead; 60% say this continues after the programme has finished), and it’s important that this is recognised from independent sources elsewhere. Also worth noting that the report underlines that "mentoring and coaching as well as access to finance through the growth process are important". Again, it’s good to see endorsement of our call for specialist support, without which all the good work on financial instruments, measurement tools and legal structures is lost.

What connects these two reports, I think, is that they both draw attention to the need to a) support and develop individuals and b) that this is not, primarily, about level 2 box-ticking audits, but about more intangible and "softer" (though harder to pin down) things like empowerment and confidence. Whilst many social entrepreneurs are driven by frustration with the status quo, or powered by personal experience, this can also become disillusioning if they are not supported on a long-term basis through the journey and if they are not genuinely able to achieve ’empowerment’. By which I mean not only in the sense of " To equip or supply with an ability" but also in the direct sense of "To invest with power", either via organisational forms they’ve established, or via genuinely representative roles within (and outwith) the political system.

If this research and this white paper can help make the case for and deliver that kind of work, then last week will have been an important one for social entrepreneurs across the UK.

Share Button