The School for Social Entrepreneurs

Is mission drift better for your bottom line?

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.

Friday round-up: Coca-Cola, Clay, Causes

Another week passes, and for your Bank Holiday reading, we present... the Friday round-up:

- Some good recent posts from some of the Social Enterprise Ambassadors: Matt Stevenson-Dodd, Daniel Heery and Chris Allwood; all well worth a read

- I've banged on a lot about the need for blogs to be authentic and honest; Stephen Bubb's blog, whilst he divides opinion, continues to deliver on both fronts: entertaining, name-drop-tastic, frank posts that feel like a conversation: how many ACEVO members will follow his lead, I wonder?

- This is a useful intro on using Social Media for Social Change

- And, as a nice foil to that, here's a piece about how Facebook Causes don't tackle root causes: or how social media is only useful if it impacts in the real offline world....

- Clay Shirky video that discusses where we find the time to watch TV, blog and the like.... [hat tip Beth]

- Interesting article on developments in Chinese philanthropy of late (post-earthquake)

-  Edge Upstarts Awards are happening on June 18th at Lindley Hall (near Pimlico); keynote speaker is Ed Balls....and the Enterprising Solutions Awards are also open for nominations / entries (till July 1st). Don't be put off by our CEO Alastair being a judge for both!

- The 9 myths of fundraising diversification is quite interesting: for those who need to do it (in these times of credit crunches and the like) to ensure no over-reliance in any one area; it's been a key part of SSE's strategy over the last few years, and this is good on stuff to consider before you start

- Simon Berry, CEO of the mighty Ruralnet, has been pushing an idea about using Coca-Cola's distribution system to help send out rehydration tablets in the developing world; support the campaign by joining the Facebook group or viewing the website here

Have a great weekend.....

Wednesday round-up link fest: Craig, CIC, Catalyst

Am between a long morning meeting and a long afternoon meeting, so just thought I'd pack in the round-up of links of interest to social entrepreneurs and the wider movement:

- Nice profile of Craig Dearden-Phillips in today's Society Guardian; I have huge respect for Craig and what he's achieved, and the interview demonstrates his clear and open approach. SSE is also endorsing his new book, Your Chance to Change the World: the no-fibbing guide to social entrepreneurship. The launch is next week, so I'll have an update then.

- Another one of the social enterprise ambassadors, Peter Holbrook, is also widely regarded as someone who walks the walk, and he's put up another great blog post on why "Food is a four-letter word"; click on 'Blogs' from the main website

- And yet more of them: congratulations to Dai Powell and Steve Sears of HCT and ECT respectively; they've combined successfully with the ingeniously-named E&HCT to win a transport contract at the Olympics.

- Social Firms UK have put out a template for a share-based version of the CIC structure

- New social investment website, powered by Rod Schwartz / Catalyst: SocialInvestments.com; see also the Good Deals conference, which looks like being a great event in this area

- David Wilcox asks: "Are big innovations possible within large non-profits?"

- Social Innovation Conversations podcast: Chip Heath on how to write a good mission (more interesting than it sounds....)

- And, for humour's sake, here's a piece from the Onion on a philanthropist wanting to give youngsters the opportunities he never had....in pole-vaulting

Why SMART goals are MT

No matter what type of organisation you work for or lead, the acronym SMART will most likely have crossed your path several times by now. For me, it’s popped up in government tenders (“demonstrate how your deliverables are SMART for your programme of work”), funding applications (“your project outcomes should be SMART”) and several times within SSE, be that operationally or strategically.

So what does it stand for? Well, this is where the problems start, as there are a few variations. The most widely accepted seems to be:

Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Time-based

But the A can also be for Attainable, the R can be Relevant or Results-oriented, and the T can also be Tangible, depending on which management bible or “how to act SMART” guide you read.

While investigating effective goal-setting in one-to-ones, I ran across the Manager Tools podcast, and these posts about goal-setting and why SMART is anything but. This made much sense to me, and chimed with some stuff I’d previously thought about this widely-used tool. Their objections include:

1)  You don’t need Specific, because if your goal/target is measurable, it must be specific (enough) anyway. Let’s get rid of the S.

2) Achievable and Realistic are virtually the same. If you make the R Results-oriented, that’s pretty much there in Measurable. And who’s going to set, or be allowed to set by their line manager/colleague, a goal that isn’t Relevant? That’s the R gone.

3) The same applies to Achievable / Attainable. If someone is setting a Measurable goal or objective, and they’re putting a deadline on it (Time-bound), then why would they make it unachievable? It’s in no-one’s interests to do so, either the person who has to achieve the goal, or the line manager who wants the organisation to achieve the goal. And so, A is gone.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us MT, people. And full of clarity and focus. As long as we use Time-based (or Time-bound, which I prefer). Tangible makes little sense to me: a) because how can you touch your goal / achievement and b) because how can you have a goal that isn’t Time-based (i.e. without a deadline)?

So it’s Measurable and Time-based. And if you select a Measurable and Time-based goal, you’ll find it is pretty SMART as well. That’s because MT is the heart of SMART.

The importance of a citizen base

In my second full week with the SSE I've become increasingly aware of the many SSE Fellows who are out there, still keeping their projects sustainable and still causing positive change. On the tube this morning I was reading the Global Ideas Bank's  "500 Ways to Change the World" and it really occurred to me how many different people have original solutions to various problems. While the book was edited and compiled by Nick Temple (Network Director at SSE) , the content was created by people who have recognized a fault  in  society and  have an idea  to fix it : 'ordinary' people suggesting social innovations.

The fact that so many want to help, and have such ideas, bodes well not only for the future of the SSE model, but also similar projects such as Ashoka's much welcomed CBI Initiative. While not in Britain quite yet, (although on the way: it's made it to France ) the Citizen Base Initiative seeks to alter "old funding strategies" and aims at helping citizen sector organisations to think differently about utilising resources, revenue streams etc, so that they can become more self-sufficient/more vibrant/less dependent on erratic funding. CBI tries to help the citizen sector break from traditional funding bodies and the state.

In essence, It's about a wider view of stakeholders and how they (your organisation's citizen base) can help access different types of resources, and help provide support. Very much in line with the view that social entrepreneurs create change through building networks, teams and movements, rather than as heroic individuals (see previous post on this subject)

Funding, the arts, and balance.

Leafing through the weekend papers, there's a lot of reporting going on of the Arts Council cuts in funding, and how they are affecting arts organisations in different ways. Admittedly, the bleeding-heart liberal, left-leaning, cappuccino--supping papers I read are arguably more likely to cover theatre types getting angry, but coverage on the whole shebang, on legal threats, on literature translation, and much more seems quite a lot over the course of two or three days. Where was the media when the Community Champions fund, one of the few providing grassroots support to individual community activists, was ditched? [the CC fund provided up to £2000 to over 10,000 people and had a pretty impressive record of outcomes and impact too].

The message also seems confused: one article lambasted the amount spent on opera, whilst another pointed out how a regional opera company was having its funding cut as an example of a poor decision. Ultimately, you have to feel some sympathy with the funders: their overall funding is increasingly constricted (falling lottery sales + Olympics), and there are often no "right" answers in these cases. Whilst calls for 'arts' people to run these funds have some validity, the nuts and bolts of effective grant-giving is as much about measurement, monitoring and administration as about informed decision-making.

Clearly, the process could have gone better (pre-Xmas with little response time) and could, possibly, have been more transparent. But the coverage has seemed quite unbalanced. This article, for example, with the calming title of "the final reckoning", details 6 arts organisations facing cuts. All worthy ca(u)ses, particularly the two theatres, it would seem to me. But none facing extinction, and some facing a reduction of around a fifth or sixth of their annual budget: substantial, but how many third sector organisations enter a financial year with all their funding and budget secured? Indeed, the experiences of these arts organisations will chime with many in the third sector....though the amount of coverage / campaigning in the media is markedly different. And where is the coverage of the organisations (700+) receiving an increase in funding from March, and the details of what greater impact they can now have?

From an SSE point of view, it's clear that this could affect students and Fellows who work in the arts sphere, of whom there are quite a few. On the other hand, several current students in London, and (shortly) in Liverpool and East Midlands have places funded by a programme which is supported (amongst others) by the Arts Council. Crucial support at a key stage of their journey in changing people's lives through the arts.

Swings, as they say, and roundabouts: and no black and white answers.

Transparency and giving well....

Regular readers will know that I often cite the delivery, quality, transparency mantra as important foundations for any socially-beneficial enterprise seeking to operate in today's world/markets. Two of those, quality (including measurement) and transparency, have collided in a huge furore over a US-based philanthropic funder/evaluator called GiveWell. You know when the founder of an organisation has to title a blog post "I had a lapse in judgement, did a horrible thing, and I apologize", that things are not good.

Basically, one of GiveWell's founders was caught asking himself a question (with a fake ID), then responding (with another ID) promoting GiveWell. He was also subsequently tracked using various aliases to promote GiveWell elsewhere online and, according to some posts, give their competitors a kicking. Not good, particularly when the organisation has shouted from the rooftops about the need for transparency and openness. This has made the reaction (see GiftHub and the original Metafilter post for the gruesome details) all the stronger and more vicious, alongside the fact that many seasoned professionals in the field had already been rubbed up the wrong way by GiveWell's perceived arrogance and naivety (the two founders are recent converts from hedge fund management, and their initial response was to offer the MetaFilter community money by way of an apology).

The laundry continues to be aired in public too. The much-respected blogger Lucy Bernholz is on GiftWell's board, and has posted here asking what she/the organisation should do.  Having put itself forward, as Jeff Trexler puts it, as a model of accountability, it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

What's interesting about this, I think, is not only the importance of walking the walk as far as transparency is concerned, but also about really understanding the internet and its power (constructive and destructive). If people thought that this blog was being used to advertise products, or had press releases placed with it, it would damage the credibility...as would any suggestion that we were making up comments on this blog or other people's. At the same time, people expect the blog to represent and inform about the work of SSE and its students and Fellows, amongst other material, in as fair and objective a way as possible. We don't always get the tone right, and sometimes have strong, subjective opinions, but trying to manipulate the audience is never an option, as GiveWell are discovering.

Incidentally, our new intern Thor does exist and is not a figment of my imagination. He'll be giving the unvarnished, barely moderated truth in his month-long stay with us here....

[UPDATE: the GiveWell founder has been demoted to Program Officer, according to this official statement from the organisation's board]

Gore, greenness and giving

I watched An Inconvenient Truth last night (I know: bit behind the times etc) which was good, if fairly depressing, Sunday night viewing. I found the powerpoint / argument / evidence compelling and got increasingly frustrated with the Gore-centred family interludes. Well worth seeing, as it does (re) inspire you to act and do what you can (particularly the credits, which are brilliantly done).

It was also remarkably relevant, given the conference in Bali currently and the news that Australia (as promised in recent election) has signed up to the Kyoto agreement. Which, at least according to Gore's film, leaves the US as the only 'advanced nation' left who hasn't. Nuff said. Of course, there will be those wondering why everyone has to fly to a beautiful location in Indonesia for the event (and, btw, it's remarkable how many shots of Al Gore in an airport there are in the film), but let's hope the outcomes justify the carbon outlay.

In other Gore-related news, my favourite headline of last week was "How the other half give", which discusses a hugely glamorous event to raise cash from, and engage/involve, celebrities for charitable causes. Those attending included Al Gore, Bob Geldof, Benazir Bhutto, Bianca Jagger and..er... Jon Bon Jovi. Very much like the SSE Xmas party, then, just with less glamour but a slightly larger budget. Apparently, the last event involved spending of £800,000, of which half was on fundraising costs; which doesn't seem like a great return, but there you go. If, as the organisers put it, it is as much about "educating" those present as it is about philanthropy, then let's hope those objectives are achieved. The power that celebrities have to raise awareness and model behaviour remains extraordinary in today's world.

But raising awareness has to translate into action, and that is where some high-profile figures do better than others. What stayed with me most from Gore's film, alongside all the science, was his quote from Winston Churchill, and it seems to be very much about that urgency to act...not just speak and reflect.

"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing, and baffling expedience of delays is coming to a close. In its place, we are coming to a period of consequences."

Will the private sector discredit or absorb social enterprise?

These (discredit / absorb) are two opinions of the private sector: social enterprise relationship I've read recently.

The first was from Cliff Prior, CEO of UnLtd, who was reported (in this Third Sector article) as making the point that "social enterprises are in danger of being discredited by private sector imitators" (aka profit-making businesses adopting a social enterprise model). Nigel Kershaw (of Big Issue Invest) rebutted this with "if you are transforming society, it doesn't matter what you are".

The second was from Julia Meek on Catalyst's Social Business Blog (Social Businesses: Victims of their own success?). In this post, she discusses the trend for mainstream businesses to adopt the approaches of social businesses, and then adopt them wholesale at a much bigger scale. Or, as Julia puts it:

"These supermarkets, electricity suppliers, market leaders and others have been able to watch the market and let social businesses prove the effectiveness of their various approaches. On observing a successful one the companies have been able to leverage their infrastructure, human capital, market positioning etc. to adopt it quickly themselves, marketing ’social’ products and services to the same target audience and at a lower price than can feasibly be offered by smaller, social businesses."

This is partly a conversation about scale: can social businesses ever break the 'ethical glass ceiling', as Julia's colleague puts it, and get the necessary investment to compete on more equal terms with the big boys? Does it mean that the best way for social businesses to make change is to pioneer/prove and hope for adaptation by the mainstream? (an approach often seen in the public sector and web 2.0 alike). She then posits 4 potential approaches, around quality, brand, partnerships and acquisitions. Well worth reading.

---

On the first, I partly agree with Cliff, in that just adopting a model / particular legal structure proves nothing, and this is a problem. This is as true for PCT's hiving half of themselves off into a CIC (excuse acronym-itis) and then commissioning that 'new' half, as it is true for the private sector. Unless the primary mission of an organisation is a social one and the initiative is driven by a social entrepreneur / team of socially entrepreneurial leaders, then its motivation can always be called into question. But we see social entrepreneurs operating across all sectors, and that is where I agree with Nigel: ultimately, moving forward, there will be this increasing blurring of boundaries, and what will matter, as I've posted before, is:

- the quality of the work/activity/product
(reputation / measurement / evaluation / provenance etc)
- how well this is communicated
(brand / voice / connections to stakeholders etc)
- the transparency with which the organisation operates
(mission / finances / governance etc)

Regardless of the legal structure chosen, these will be key things for all organisations operating across this field; from enterprising charities through to socially-responsible companies.

It's interesting to relate the second post to the 'six practices of high-impact non-profits' (which I mentioned here), in that one of those practices was to 'serve and advocate'. If the pioneering role of social business in getting ethical / fair / green / social practices adopted by the mainstream is seen through this lens of advocacy, then maybe that helps place it in a slightly different context. Also, as I am bound to say in this context, the assumption is also there that social enterprises and the like want to scale up. As the Small Business Blog posted the other day, "69 percent of small business owners said that they prefer to have their business remain small.” If that is true in the private sector, surely the same can be said of the third sector / social enterprise movement as well? (If not more so, as 'small and beautiful' is a mantra to some).

And surely the movement should be proud to be influencing and changing the mainstream in the way that it has: how satisfying, however imperfectly done, to see big supermarkets pushing fairtrade coffee, to see Fiji water pushing its carbon neutrality, to see M&S put out its Plan A...none of which would have been achieved without hundreds of activists, campaigners and social entrepreneurs, and none of which we could have said even one, two, three years ago. Where we are strongest is in demonstrating, through quality practice and delivery, that things can be done differently....and that they are better done that way.

Friday round-up: Coin St, Clinton, Camberwell, Collaboration

SSE is still recovering from its residential in Devon which was a great success. Write-up/report to follow soon. Though here are a few photos that give a snapshot (click to enlarge):

So at least you know why we're tired....anyway, the traditional Friday round-up:

- Social Entrepreneur Show going on in Olympia today and tomorrow. Part of Business Start-Up show that's run for quite a few years....

- Whilst we were in Dartington, CAN had their Scaling Up event. Third Sector reports on some of the findings, namely that the supported organisations' turnover increased 20% in two years, with social impact increasing 40% (presumbaly with a wider range of measures..). I was interested by this as well: "A CAN spokeswoman said Permira had received no return on its investment of £690,000 because, in CAN’s view, the social enterprise sector is “not yet ready to give market-rate returns”."

- Coin Street in the news with their ambitious South Bank plans....

- For all those who say the hype is out of control, check this report in the New York Sun: "A Bush-Clinton idea". The idea? Social entrepreneurship....Look forward to seeing George and Bill on our next programme.

- Chris Hill at Camberwell Project makes some good points in this article from the Yorkshire Post re. enterprise and deprivation.

- Interesting article in New York Times on the "right" places to learn entrepreneurship, which basically goes through lots of university-based courses. Then there's a link to a different view, an article by George Gendron, who says "kids with passion are our next entrepreneurs", and that entrepreneurial life skills are needed by all...

- In the world where social networking meets non-profits, no-one understands/connects more than Beth Kanter: thoughts on Google Open Social et al in this post

- Also via Beth, Forces For Good: the Six Practices of High Impact Non-Profits is a new book out in the US. Read the authors' essay on Stanford Social Innovation Review site: Creating High-Impact Non-Profits
The 6 practices, FYI, are:

• serve and advocate (delivery not enough: policy to achieve big change)
• make markets work (tap into self-interest / capitalism)
• inspire evangelists (strong communities of supporters / emotional connections / involvement)
• nurture non-profit networks (collaboration rather than competition)
• master the art of adaptation (combining innovation, execution and learning)
• share leadership (distribute amongst organisation / team)

Job done.

- Acumen Fund have a blog which occasionally has interesting gems. This post about Melinda Gates aiming to eradicate malaria is worth a read. I particularly enjoyed the following comment: "the experts are often expert in what has been, not what could be."

Cheers.