Social (entrepreneur) networking

Posted on April 3, 2007 by sse

Attended an interesting meeting held by Unltd today about a social networking platform for social entrepreneurs. Their proposal is very much around involving existing organisations web-presences, and combining content/expertise/memberships through judicious use of web 2.0 technologies (RSS, XML etc). This seems a very sensible approach, given that it is likely only through this ‘open’ and collaborative approach that critical mass could be reached, and the cross-cutting nature of social entrepreneur networks be represented.

Social networking can be made interesting and easy with the help of a website that has been designed specially by professionals. You can check perth web design reviews to find out all the information you need regarding web designing and how to avail the services.

There was an interesting discussion after their presentation, including everything from the near-apocalyptic (this will do away with business support agencies and revolutionise the internet) to the more prosaic (how would this work, what would it look like). I made my traditional Luddite point that we should be wary of assuming access, and be aware of the digital divide. It’s an issue that I’ve become particularly aware of whilst running introductory sessions with SSE students to our extranet: the IT literacy and confidence with the kind of applications we were discussing today is far from ubiquitous. As Cliff Prior (UnLtd CEO) rightly said to me, those disenfranchised or missing out well may be decided by age, more than, say, race or background (though figures still show that there is a working-class/middle-class divide as well).

It’s a key point, though: if this movement is about reducing inequality, we need to be wary of things that may reinforce that inequality, or add to it in different ways. I’m not suggesting we don’t go ahead with this kind of project (which SSE are keen to be involved in), and that these issues should hold us back, but that we need to address them alongside: embedded in our support programmes, for example.

My main other point was that this will be complementary and add to offline support (and provide channels to it), rather than replace it or do away with it. This will benefit those organisations with the best content and who understand this area best (and who, crucially, understand that you have to “socialise” what you create). But offline stuff will remain: democratising the tools of production for social entrepreneurs (to apply long tail terminology) can’t be done solely through the net. Networking can be facilitated but trusted relationships (of commissioning, trading, referring, support) are built face-to-face and in physical spaces.

Aside from that, I think it could potentially be very interesting, as many of the tools are out there already (which makes it relatively cheap, and swift to develop). The point one person raised (“this is like EMI building MySpace”) carries a note of warning, but we should encourage intrapreneurship as well as entrepreneurship….and everyone agreed that it will need to be shaped and owned by the users as soon as is practicable. Watch this (my) space.

Incidentally, it got me thinking about some of the tools out there, and what my kind of personalised page might look like, so I’ve started creating one on NetVibes. You can check it out here (you’ll have to set up a Netvibes page to add my tab):

Skoll World Forum of Social Entrepreneurship: 2007 round-up

Posted on April 3, 2007 by sse

OK, so the round-up of this year’s Skoll Forum is well overdue. I’ll start by saying that there’s much more online coverage this year, so for an overview start at Social Edge which gives decent summaries and overviews of each sessions, if not much comment (beyond the star bloggers). You can also view videos of quite a few sessions online, which is inevitably going to give more information than any blogger could.

Other coverage includes Kevin Jones comparing it to alien abduction (it makes sense, trust me), some good coverage from Bruno Giussani, and comment from Sustainability’s John Elkington (who was also chairing/presenting a couple of sessions). I’ll add any more that I come across.

The event was split into three strands this year: social innovation (this year’s theme), evergreen (aka stuff this sector always discusses), and research (the academic wing). This is partly as a result of the event’s growing popularity (600+ people) and an associated need to split across venues, but also to try and give a snapshot of the sheer amount of activity happening across the world.

This for me is the primary value of the Skoll Forum. As a four-year veteran since its inception, I value its ability to give time for reflection, for networking across borders, and for challenging embedded thinking. As with any conference, people will always say that the most value comes outside of the main sessions, in the breaks, at dinners and in the wine receptions. This is true (or at least was for me this year) but there was also much to be learned in the more formal arenas.

In the opening ceremony, Jeff Skoll welcomed us (referencing his ambition last year to get Muhammad Yunus as well known as Britney Spears, he dryly observed that “Britney has raised the bar in the last year”), as did the Oxford head honchos, before we moved on to the substance.

This started with Geoff Mulgan on social innovation, which was very strong, and communicated with passion and clarity. And not to mention some great quotes (on the cross-sectoral nature of this work, he observed that “only cemeteries have people in tidy rows”). Obviously, the content was fairly familiar to me, as we are increasingly working closely with the Young Foundation, and SSE is a founding partner of their social innovation exchange (which was launched at Skoll; could be the first and last time I am ever a ‘thinker in residence’), but there was still some interesting new tidbits to me: particularly Michael Young always taking ‘no’ as a question, and seeking objections as a method of idea refinement. More generally, he called for an expansion of horizons and greater investment in the different routes and methods of social innovation.

Charles Handy gave some interesting examples from his new book, the New Philanthropists. I’ll try and review the book at a later date, but this was an interesting view into one part of the growing spectrum of social entrepreneurship. And the different philanthropists (or philanthrocapitalists or venture philanthropists or philanthropreneurs) are working in an incredibly diverse range of areas.

David Galenson then gave an interesting overview of his theory of two types of innovators (the one, conceptual young geniuses; the other, incremental old master experimentalists). It is interesting, but took a little too long for me to apply this in the social sphere and social innovators.

Next up was Muhammad Yunus, who got a standing ovation from the massed ranks of the Sheldonian. There’s been so much written about him, that I won’t add to it, but I was glad that amongst scenes of great celebration of him as a star social entrepreneur, he reminded us that “you can solve a neighbourhood problem, not a global problem”, and that all “citizens can solve problems”.

Finally, we had the Queen of Jordan who introduced us to her concept of Corporate Multicultural Responsibility (or CMR). She started by talking about Star Trek (to say that we are boldly going etc with ‘enterprise’), before espousing the need to address “the poverty of multicultural knowledge and respect”.

As we exited, there was amusement at Nigel Kershaw (of Big Invest) thinking that the aformentioned majesty was in fact an actress from Star Trek (“I liked it, but couldn’t work out why they’d invited her”), before the stampede back to the drinks reception….

————————————————–

Day two started early for us as we were presenting our “Long Tail of Social Entrepreneurship” proposal in the 8am slot. [I’ll blog about this separately, as promised: thanks to all those who attended and contributed]. I attended a couple of sessions: one was Social Entrepreneurs in Education, which I thought was great. It was only an hour, but each speaker was limited to just three minutes to talk, before facing questions: which meant a fruitful discussion (other sessions would have beenfited from stronger chairing!).

Eric Schwarz of Citizen Schools talked about the interface between policy and grassroots delivery (and the need to be able to meet the changes in the former with the capacity of the latter), while Ann Cotton said that CAMFED’s policy work was rooted in practice, which gave the credibility and legitimacy. This is what SSE has argued in our field and was good to hear that it has really worked from an SSE Fellow (and now Skoll Fellow) herself. Ann also said how important it was to ask questions with government rather than of them.

Martin Burt of Fundacion Paraguaya (and Teach a Man To Fish) detailed his sustainable schools of entrepreneurship: the schools currently cover 71% of their own costs, and the children learn (and earn!) through doing. Martin is such a great character, with a contagious enthusiasm and charisma. Teddy Blecher, of CIDA in South Africa, which works to increase the numbers of black people in university through making it virtually free, was another inspiring speaker: his ideas about consciousness-based education and university-in-a-box (to create town economies) were really thought-provoking. Finally, J B Schramm of College Summit gave his views on philanthropists (and how to scale your economic model)….

Great session, and good audience interaction (the two are connected).

I then went to Moving Capital, which featured several speakers including Penny Newman of CafeDirect and Arthur Wood from Ashoka. This was more of a mind-stretcher, with financial jargon and statistics aplenty, and I see that I took few notes, mostly through my brain being unable to cope with writing and understanding at the same time (particularly when Arthur unleashed another terrifying barrage of jargon and stats). I’ll revisit this online, because there was much of interest. Penny was great, and kept it grounded and connected to the world we operate in.

The awards were held in the Sheldonian, and were inspiring although, as with the opening plenary, one can often spot the cultural differences. Those from the UK and Australia tend to be slightly less enthusiastic for the celebratory stuff, whilst the US and others tend to relish it a bit more. The setting for the reception was equally spectacular, on the grounds of Trinity College, with much networking again. And drinking continued onwards into the night: Kevin Jones of Xigi and I crossed paths in a bar, and I agreed to contribute to their mapping endeavours (as far as I remember, something about mapping the value of networks to our students….but I’ll trawl the memory banks…).

I was off to our Aston graduation on the Thursday so missed Larry Brilliant (though I’ve heard he was, well….you know, by name, by nature etc) from Google.org, and missed Ed Miliband on Social Innovation, though I’m told he was klockor kopior good as well. Will check out online once my broadband improves…

————————

Overall, and I am aware that this is a hugely long post, so if you’re still with me, thanks…..overall, I enjoyed. Skoll is great for giving a good snapshot of the scene, for creating intersections, for sparking off new thoughts and for providing a space for reflection. It’s also interesting how you have different conversations there, even with the people whom you know very well….

It was welcome, though, to go to our Aston SSE’s first programme graduation in the heart of inner-city Birmingham. 8 completed the programme, 7 of whom are women, 6 BME, all unemployed and, without exception, all were utterly inspiring, confident and ambitious for their future. It reminded me of what SSE is in this business for, and how the movement (to steal a bit of Whitman) encompasses multitudes….and it must continue to do so.

The definition of social entrepreneurship (yes, again)

Posted on March 23, 2007 by sse

There’s a big article out at the moment on the Stanford Social Innovation Review, entitled “Social Entrepreneurship: the Case for Definition”. The abstract is as follows:

“Social entrepreneurship is attracting growing
amounts of talent, money, and attention. But along with its increasing
popularity has come less certainty about what exactly a social
entrepreneur is and does. As a result, all sorts of activities are now
being called social entrepreneurship. Some say that a more inclusive
term is all for the good, but the authors argue that it’s time for a
more rigorous definition.”

It’s quite an interesting article with some good points and case studies, and I’d generally recommend a read of it. But, it’s central premise is that social entrepreneurship is only social entrepreneurship if it has scale or, in their words, “lead to a new superior equilibrium”. Here’s what they say:

“We define social entrepreneurship as having the following
three components:
– (1) identifying a stable but inherently unjust
equilibrium that causes the exclusion, marginalization, or suffering
of a segment of humanity that lacks the financial means
or political clout to achieve any transformative benefit on its own;

– (2) identifying an opportunity in this unjust equilibrium, developing
a social value proposition, and bringing to
bear inspiration, creativity, direct action, courage,
and fortitude, thereby challenging the stable state’s
hegemony;
– and (3) forging a new, stable equilibrium
that releases trapped potential or alleviates the suffering
of the targeted group, and through imitation
and the creation of a stable ecosystem around the
new equilibrium ensuring a better future for the targeted
group and even society at large.”

It’s a little bit tricky, I acknowledge, to take this out of context (do read the whole piece: it’s more understandable then), but the argument seems utterly flawed to me. They start by saying that we must first define entrepreneurship, because ‘social’ simply modifies that. OK, fine. They then go through entrepreneurship definitions (Schumpeter, Drucker et al)….and end up with:

“we believe that entrepreneurship
describes the combination of a context in which an
opportunity is situated, a set of personal characteristics required
to identify and pursue this opportunity, and the creation of a particular
outcome”

OK, no argument from me there. And no argument with the characteristics they then pull out (inspiration, creativity, prone to action, courage, fortitutde). But the case studies of entrepreneurs they select are only large scale disruptive entrepreneurs: the founders of eBay and Apple and so on. This means they move towards a definition of entrepreneurship which involves scale as well:

“It is through mass-market adoption, significant
levels of imitation, and the creation of an ecosystem
around and within the new equilibrium that it [the new equilibrium] first stabilizes and
then securely persists.”

Before finally moving, inexorably and inevitably, towards a definition of social entrepreneurship that involves scale as well. And those who don’t achieve scale? They are “social service providers”….:

“But unless [social service provision] is designed to
achieve large scale or is so compelling as to launch legions of
imitators and replicators, it is not likely to lead to a new superior
equilibrium.

These types of social service ventures never break out of their
limited frame: Their impact remains constrained, their service
area stays confined to a local population, and their scope is determined
by whatever resources they are able to attract. These ventures
are inherently vulnerable, which may mean disruption or
loss of service to the populations they serve. Millions of such
organizations exist around the world – well intended, noble in
purpose, and frequently exemplary in execution – but they
should not be confused with social entrepreneurship.”

So basically, their argument is: entrepreneurship involves certain characteristics, but is also about fundamentally changing (through disruption/imitation) a sector or field on a large scale. Therefore, social entrepreneurship (and I don’t disagree with how they define the social part of this: primacy of mission etc) is the same.

[Incidentally, why these groups are “inherently vulnerable”, anymore than a large organisation set up by an entrepreneur is beyond me….for another time, perhaps…]

But they can only get to this point by creating a definition of entrepreneurship that involves scale. Which is, well, not something you find in many definitions of the word/concept. Aren’t there small entrepreneurs?

I’d like to be really clear that we have nothing against the kind of social entrepreneurs (Yunus, Victoria Hale etc) they describe: they and the work and impact of their organisations is magnificent, and deserves to be recognised and supported. And Skoll have done wonders in promoting the movement through the Forum and supporting social entrepreneurship through their awards (the latest 2007 awardees are another impressive set of amazing people). But why must a definition (which they want to avoid confusion, and because “We are concerned that serious thinkers will also overlook
social entrepreneurship”.) exclude those who demonstrate the same characteristics, the same entrepreneurial spirit and mindset, with the same primacy of mission, and achieving the kind of changes they discuss, but on a smaller scale?

What is wrong, for example, with differentiating between, as we recently discussed in several posts with the Shaftesbury Partnership, “system” social entrepreneurs and “community” social entrepreneurs, whilst acknowledging that some of the latter may morph into the former?

Anyone who reads this blog regularly will know that we cover this ground regularly and that we are more interested in getting on with delivery than going round in circles forever in this debate. But I couldn’t ignore this, particularly as this pre-eminent emphasis on scale is precisely what our talk at Skoll and forthcoming paper (on the long tail of social entrepreneurship) are intended to address.

Lest you think I’m alone in this critique, a few people have responded (here it is called a “lullaby to elites” in the comments, which is a bit strong!), but the first comment under the paper on Stanford’s own site says it pretty plainly:

“This [the article] is interesting but unfortunately just completely wrong. The vast
majority of entrepreneurs are small. This does not stop them from being
entrepreneurs. So it is with social entrepreneurs. The vast majority
are small. This does not stop them from being social entrepreneurs. How
big or influential they become is entirely irrelevant to their status,
as it is with entrepreneurs generally. Treating the extent of their
growth or influence as an indicator of their status is a category
error, like saying only large buildings with penthouses are really
buildings, and my house therefore doesn’t count as a building.
Similarly many entrepreneurs fail. This doesn’t stop them being
entrepreneurs. So it is with social entrepreneurs. Many will fail. This
doesn’t stop them being social entrepreneurs. The above argument
applies. There may be some conceivably valid reasons for wanting a
definition, such as the one given at the end of the article – that
people will be confused if you don’t – but this reason has nothing to
do with the size or influence or success of social entrepreneurs.”

golden goose falsas
golden goose imitacion

The Third Sector budget…

Posted on March 21, 2007 by sse

Not much to report in the budget (well, obviously lots to report: a cut in income tax, inheritcan tax threshold raised, an Environmental Transformation fund, and, shock of all shocks, the tax on cigarettes has gone up….) as far as the third sector is concerned.

No decision on unclaimed assets, though the emphasis seems very much on youth services on financial capability/inclusion.

Social enterprise action plan gets a mention, including the Community Investment Tax Relief model for encouraging investment; the change there is that CDFIs will have more flexibility in how they can use funds raised under CITR (see below for the technicalities)

Futurebuilders will be open to ALL third sector organisations from spring 2008; i.e. they’ve widened the criteria to cover all areas of service delivery…

The biggest new thing, as far as I can see, is the £80 million to promote "community action and voice" through core-funding for grassroots community organisations; this looks genuinely interesting, and should get a mighty hooray by the looks of it: exactly the kind of devolved-to-the-grassroots-grants-are-needed-as-well-as-loans type funding that SSE (amongst others) has been calling for. It will be administered by the Office of the Third Sector, and "channelled through third sector partners at a local level, such as Community Foundations"

The OTS has a press release about it with more info, along with the Futurebuilders and CITR developments in more detail…

Welcome to our social enterprise blog. Here you'll find news, views and updates from the School for Social Entrepreneurs.