The School for Social Entrepreneurs

Collaboration, partnership and the network mindset

It is a time of significant change in the world of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship, where markets shift, cuts take hold, and new opportunities beckon from the horizon. And as available finance becomes constrained, so the focus rightly becomes cost effectiveness. Sadly, in the case of many local authorities, the emphasis has been on the ‘cost’ (and offloading those that are easiest) rather than the ‘effectiveness’ part of the proposition. Matthew Pike makes this point in a recent Guardian article, citing the short-term view of local authorities and the problems this is storing up for the future.

The constrained finance and focus on cost effectiveness is also creating some interesting formal partnerships and mergers, and more informal clustering and networking alongside them. Examples include the Locality merger of BASSAC and DTA, and the Guardian’s recent purchase of UnLtdWorld. The former is an example of a trusted partnership built over time (and through practical collaboration) that became formalised by merger; externally, at least, it seems like an object lesson in how to merge minimising ego and pain, and maximising impact and effectiveness. Something that will be tested by their recent win to deliver the government’s Community Organisers programme…

The Guardian / UnLtdWorld deal has happened more rapidly, and is more about a clustering or joining up of networks, recognising that there aren’t necessarily the room for several of these in the current market conditions; and that more can potentially be achieved together. It could well be a very interesting mix of Guardian content + UnLtdWorld’s people/networks, of theory and practice, and I’m sure will be an interesting place to watch and engage with in the coming months for social entrepreneurs.

The organisations that are a step-ahead in this context are those that have cultivated a network mindset. By which I mean those that have always looked to share, collaborate, partner and empower; genuine trusted relationships (the foundation of successful partnerships; for more, see here) can’t be built in a day. For every successful partnership I’ve heard about recently, there is one that has fallen through or not worked. 

Finally, it is also those who relentlessly focus on the impact and the mission who can see beyond organisational boundaries to the greater good. This is more difficult when times are hard, but even more necessary. Now more than ever for social entrepreneurs, it is a time to get the head up, take stock, be real with yourself and ask how you could be more effective in your work; and who you might want (and need) to collaborate with to make that happen.

[Nick Temple can now also be found blogging at NickTemple.org]

Social enterprise and entrepreneurship links from September

Slightly delayed due to the SSE residential, but here's my round-up of interesting, relevant and topical links in the world of social enterprise and entrepreneurship from September:

- Not officially September, but as I'm late, two events from early October worth following up on were SoCap 10 and SBC10. Check out the tweets (#socap10 #sbc10) and videos etc online if you couldn't be there like me.

- Stats + definitions: a generation hangs their head as the debate continues.... new research questioned how many social enterprises there are, which also prompted a call for clarity of definitions

- More forward- (and outward-) looking was Pamela Hartigan's interview on Dowser.org explaining why you don't have to be a social entrepreneur to make change, but it's good to know what they are...

- I'm pretty much in whole-hearted agreement with many of Malcolm Gladwell's points in this New Yorker piece on the limitations of Twitter + Facebook in creating change

- Global social entrepreneurs were excited by the Unreasonable Institute and Echoing Green applications opening. SSE is a pipeline partner to Unreasonable, so we're looking forward to seeing who they get on board this year; hopefully some SSE Fellows will be encouraged to apply

- Suffolk was the county on everyone's lips as they announced their intention to outsource "virtually all" services to social enterprise....

- ...while Suffolk councillor (and social entrepreneur) Craig Dearden-Phillips wrote openly about the need (and lack?) of financial incentives for social entrepreneurs

- Sean Stannard-Stockton took impact into a new holistic era, beyond reductive metrics (on Social Edge)

- Big Society-wise, I have mostly been enjoying Karl Wilding (NCVO)'s neat overview presentation, Paul Hodgkin (SSE Fellow / Patient Opinion)'s article on importance of conversation + technology, and Radio 4's Analysis programme on Big Society (hat-tip to SSE colleague Ian Baker for the latter)

- Jonathan Jenkins (from UnLtd Ventures / Advantage) is as good as anyone on social investment, and this article on the need for angel investment brings out some of the key points, and the key current problems, of this emerging market

- David Robinson, one of the most quietly effective leaders in the social sector, writes about (and welcomes) the first pilot Social Impact Bond

- Social Entrepreneurs Ireland held their latest awards event, which I heard was fantastic: round-up and article on the event here

- Rod Schwartz got a good debate going about mergers, partnerships and egos in social enterprise

- Paul Light is a US professor who's been beavering away at social entrepreneurship for many years; he knows his stuff, as this Just Means interview makes clear

- The Social Enterprise Ambassadors programme had its closing event: details and photos on the website

- Tim Harford, who I'm a fan of on More or Less, has written a couple of interesting critiques of 'nudge' theory (behavioural economics stuff); see Nudges are for Markets, not Nations and To Nudge is One Thing, To Nanny Another

- And finally, because everyone loves a list, Inc.Com's 10 tips for managing a one-person sales force (a concept familiar to many of our students...) and this great post of 15 excuses for not making ideas happen.

Presumably no. 16 is writing a blog post to delay other work. On which note, over and out.

A small and clear presentation about the Big Society

There's been much written and said about the Big Society but it's been sometimes difficult to get clarity on what it means, what's happening, and what the opportunities are. In some areas, that's still unclear (and will be until post October 20th, when government announces its spending plans in the Comprehensive Spending Review), but this presentation by Karl Wilding over at NCVO is as clear as it gets. Enjoy.

 

A small presentation on The Big Society on Prezi

 

Learning from failure (and social entrepreneurship)

I attended a fascinating lunchtime seminar the other week. It's not often the words 'fascinating', 'lunchtime' and 'seminar' are used in juxtaposition, so thought I would share some of the key points from the session. It was called, Trial, Error and the Big Society though it was more 'trial, error and failure in the public policy sphere' in reality (it would appear you're actually not allowed to hold any event currently without the words Big + Society in the title...). Aubrey Fox, who has been working at the Young Foundation, was talking about the lessons from his work at the Center for Court Innovation, and his associated book Trial and Error in Criminal Justice Reform: Learning from Failure

Despite my lack of knowledge about the criminal justice system, Aubrey was thankfully making some points of more general relevance which I was able to make sense of. And I think there are some interesting lessons for both social entrepreneurs and those who support them. This is all in the context of "there is failure in anything you do" and "failure is difficult to talk about":

1) Failure is in the eye of the beholder: a binary view of pass/fail does not reflect the complexity of most project outcomes, nor the experiences of those taking part in it in some way; success looks different to different people, and so does failure

2) Working once doesn't mean it will work forever (or somewhere else): this is a fascinating one for us, because we franchise our model and are passionate about replication that works; but there are countless external factors beyond 'the model', and a constantly changing environment

3) Leadership is crucial: Aubrey made the interesting point that 'boring' leaders are better than 'heroic' leaders; it is also about different stages of leadership for different elements of a project....and how to achieve those leadership transitions (often a point of failure)

4) Work to close the gaps between policy + practice: still these two groups are not effective at working together (I know, shock!); but ways to avoid failure involve a two way street of nudging or incentivising or de-risking or facilitating policymakers to be more creative, and also training, supporting, developing practitioners to effectively run and sustain what they do and not to fall into the trap of...

5) ...the 'seductive power of unrealistic expectations': another great phrase, and one that I've termed the risk of "overpromise and under-delivery"; actually, changing behaviours and cultural norms at an individual level (never mind organisational or system level) is very difficult; and there is an assumption (is this correct?) that "projects would not win (public) support with modest results"; but that is a short-term win rather than a long-term success outlook.....

Further points of interest were

- that the consequences for individual failure differ depending on the project or sector (i.e. it's fine for James Dyson to trial 550 different hoovers and throw them out, it's not the same with, say, young offenders)

- that structural leadership (of teams, of coalitions) with agreed analysis and measurement is important

- defining what success looks like too early can put a limit on ambition (aka "sometimes you need to hold your nerve")

- the burden of proof in the sector is often on the new, rather than the existing

- the value of "calculated candour" (a phrase I love), which speaks to the need to be open without being reckless, to being as straightforward as possible about what has worked and what hasn't; because openness builds trust, which builds credibility builds support....

- areas ripe for innovation might be those where the risk (and cost) of the status quo is higher than the risk (and cost) of innovation

- couple of interesting questions; one that doesn't get asked (what is your expected failure rate?) and one that was difficult to answer (what is the motivation for individuals to take risks and to admit failures?)

At that point, brain expanded, and tried to come back to work...learning and failing, learning and failing.

[hat-tip as ever to the wonderful Indexed blog for the image; buy the postcard book via the site!]

Is trust the most radical and efficient thing we have?

A little while back, I wrote a post about whether a trust-based society could help square the public service delivery circle: the idea being that, in a time of fewer resources but greater need, removing middling tiers of bureaucratic infrastructure from top-down projects could help more resources reach the grassroots and allow more delivery and impact to take place. That a 'contract-based' society that emphasises monitoring rather than measurement, accountability rather than transparency, is actually a hindrance to genuine devolution. (On that subject, there's an interesting piece worth reading on whether we there is now a risk of a new 'transparency bureaucracy' being created....).

There is an updated version of the paper SSE's chair Charlotte Young has written on this subject, downloadable as a pdf, which asks (and begins to answer): How Can Social Entrepreneurs Help Build A Big Society (pdf)

I was reminded of this reading this article yesterday by Aditya Chakrabortty about A Revolution in Global Aid which describes how cash is starting to be simply, well, given to the poor. No large infrastructure projects with government-NGO-private sector partnerships, but a devolving of money straight to those who need it. On the one hand, cash transfers like this sound ridiculously naive (as some of the comments below the article say), but it is actually about focusing on the best use of resources, about challenging the status quo, about being aware of the risks but being prepared to be radical. And about focusing on the outcomes, rather than on the intermediary processes and bureaucracy.

So, without wishing to sound like a hippy seeking to hug it out with all and sundry, I do wonder if trust could be a core part of the answer to the question that so many are asking in different ways: how can we deliver more for less? how can we achieve more efficiency but increase impact? how can we use the current circumstances to foster innovation at the grassroots? how do we create a big society?

And trust comes in different forms: not just trust from official bodies that money will be spent in a particular way, not just the trust that needs to return in those official institutions (political, financial), not just the trust to be (re)built in communities and between neighbours, not just the trust each social entrepreneur needs to build in their own work and those who support them, but also the trust in oneself to create and be part of change. As a wiser man than I put it (the playwright Chekhov), "You must trust and believe in people or life becomes impossible".

[hat tip as ever to the utterly brilliant Indexed blog for the image]

What are the policy and communications futures for social entrepreneurs?

My role at SSE is Policy and Communications Director, so in keeping with that, today a bit of policy, and a bit of comms.

First up, I contributed to the Society Guardian podcast (in association with KnowHowNonProfit which is well worth a look) and produced excellently by Sound Delivery, an organisation started by SSE Fellow Jude Habib. With Public Services editor David Brindle as host, I joined Stephen Bubb from ACEVO in the Guardian's impressive in-house studios, and we discussed the Big Society, the new influx of MPs with a charity background, and the renaming of the Office of the Third Sector to the Office of Civil Society. You can listen / download here for our thoughts on what's ahead.

Secondly, from a communications perspective, this slideset came across my radar from the ever-industrious Ben Matthews at Bright One. It's an initiative called Charity Comms 2020, and features great tips, advice and future thinking about how communications will change in the future for the sector. Jude pops up again here, along with a whole host of media experts and practitioners. Here's the set of slides:

CharityComms 2020

View more presentations from Ben Matthews.

Learning by doing: a social entrepreneur's take on Big Society

I've been reading a few of the responses to the Big Society vision outlined by the new government. For example, you can get Stephen Bubb's take at ACEVO (pdf), and Martin Brookes et al's perspective at New Philanthropy Capital. Both worth reading if you get the time, raising some interesting challenges.

But a response that resonated with me from our work here at SSE was one that came through to me on my TheyWorkForYou alert (timely, seeing as we are now in a new era of open data): Lord Mawson, who founded (with others) CAN and the Bromley-By-Bow Centre, put forward his thoughts in the House of Lords in the Queen's Speech debate. You can read the whole thing here, but I've selected a few sections that stood out to me from the social entrepreneur / practitioner's perspective. Seeing how this was picked up and covered once I'd tweeted it round, it seems that others also found it relevant. Key points? Back people, not structures; encourage "learning-by-doing" environments; cross-sector partnerships; don't reinvent, but build on the work of those who have innovated.

Lord Mawson:

"We all know that it is crucial for a new Government to lay solid foundation stones on which real change and development can grow. Real change is elusive and may not come to fruition until a Government have left office. Effective innovation can take a generation and requires committed individuals to champion it. It is rarely captured in a policy document, written by what my colleagues affectionately refer to as "the bright, young things". Real change has to be grown and deeply rooted in communities, otherwise, as I suspect that new Labour is discovering, it will be blown away like the sand when the first gust of wind comes along.

[....]

"...What are the lessons? How do you create a big society and lift the game in education, health and welfare? First, I would suggest that this Government support organisations that already have a successful record of reforming public services. Do not reinvent the wheel, but build on what works. They should back success and learn from their many years of detailed practical work. Do not, as new Labour so often did, take their best ideas, pass them to the Civil Service machine and exclude these experienced innovators. Let them take the wheel. Support them and enable their efficiency. Do not think that it is now the Government's job to take control. It is not. They should take the long-term view.

[.....]

"I would ask the Minister how he will practically encourage new environments where people 'learn by doing'. Will he get his hands dirty by planting the seeds of enterprise in the fertile soil outside the comfortable but dry world of theory? If this new generation of politicians is to gain any understanding of how the real world works in practice, and not hide in the bubble of Westminster, I would humbly suggest that each Member of Parliament should become involved in one project in their constituency to play their part in building the "big society". Do not pontificate about it: do it. Legislators might then begin to understand the relationship between legislation and practice because attempting to deliver a new school, health centre or service is a practical nightmare nowadays, given the number of contradictory hoops laden with half-baked ideology that practitioners like me have to jump through. The confusion that exists between delivery and democracy is a minefield. The micro is the clue to the macro. Learn from it and gain the public's respect in the process.

[......]

"the idea that devolving power to local authorities will deliver a plurality of outcomes is not always correct either. Local authorities are not neutral when commissioning services. They often have an aversion to selecting innovative approaches because they do not understand them. Many of their staff have only ever worked in the public sector. They do what they have always done, but change the wording on the forms to please the Government of the day. Look carefully and you will still see the same bodies under new clothes. Local authorities are often the least likely to choose an innovative approach to service delivery...

[....]

"Partnership is a great thing and the present financial crisis is the time to embrace innovation. Never miss the opportunity presented by a good crisis. If you are to deliver, I would humbly suggest that you do not rely on structures or theories, but on people. Back the best people, be they in the business, public or social enterprise sectors, and, funnily enough, you will be fair to everyone."

-----------

On reading it all again, I'm also struck by his focus on relationships, and trusted relationships as the foundation of useful, productive partnerships. This was also something that came up continually at the Chain Reaction Stronger Communities event last week, and seems central to painting the right pictures on the canvas of Big Society.

Reflections on elections (for social entrepreneurs)

It's looking more likely that either a Conservative minority or Con-Lib Dem coalition will be coming into power following one of the more unpredictable and uncertain elections in recent times. Indeed, as happy as I was to be asked for my opinions on what was "great", what we should "hate" and what would be our priority from a new government, it did seem (and still does!) a little premature. So what's the news for social entrepreneurs?:

- All the parties are broadly supportive of social enterprise + social entrepreneurship, so this area can actually be a place of coalition + partnership: a thing they agree on. This could be a good thing (stuff might happen) or it might mean that the focus and priorities are elsewhere. This article, which quotes Nick Hurd and Jenny Willott, implies that the cross-party consensus makes it more likely that this will be an area of progress.

- Local still matters. It was interesting that Shaun Bailey, the Conservative social entrepreneur candidate in Hammersmith, failed to win. But many think this was largely a rejection of the council's activities (link is to an Independent article, which is refuted here) rather than Bailey himself, or a reflection of pretty equal campaigning resources on the ground. Countless other constituencies reflected local concerns and issues, rather than national ones.

- Bailey was front and centre of the Big Society idea as well (the Big Society blog gives updates / discussion). Much has been written on this too, from those on the left who see it as a cynical front for Tory cuts in welfare, and those on the right who view it as near-Fabian in its communitarian aspirations. My feeling is Patrick Butler has it about right in this round-up: "the election knock-about over David Cameron's 'big society' has somewhat obscured, misrepresented or trivialised some of the ideas within it"; and a group of social entrepreneurs and support agencies have signed a letter to that effect, 'defending' civil society.

Not to say that the idea shouldn't be questioned, investigated, challenged and critiqued (most cogently by Rob Greenland), but it has tended to be simplified to "volunteering" in the newspapers. And the debate has rather ignored that most of the policies in the social enterprise / entrepreneurship space are similar on both sides, and that, simply, cuts will happen. The disagreement on cuts can be about how much, how fast and where they are targeted, but there's little disagreement between the parties that social entrepreneurs and the wider civil society will be expected to grow and do more.

- Social Enterprise Magazine has a round-up of those MPs (relevant to social enterprise) who have lost, gained or saved their seats. Whatever happens, we will have a new minister for the Third Sector (or Civil Society), as Angela Smith lost her seat as expected; as did previous minister Phil Hope in the even more marginal Corby.

- On a lighter note, SSE Fellow Susan Archibald stood against Gordon Brown in his Kirkcaldy constituency, and just narrowly failed in her attempt....she is, however, the most searched person on the SSE website this week...

- And finally, it's interesting to consider that the politicians are now having to take on what they always encourage from us: partnership and coalition working. We won't know the result for a bit, but we can certainly guarantee a significant amount of resources, time and energy expended on partnership formation....problems over governance + agreeing process, and bringing the people in both organisations with them will be a challenge.

Brief social entrepreneurship thoughts on the Conservative manifesto

In the spirit of yesterday's brief look at the Labour manifesto, here's a look at the Conservatives' new document. Again, I'm not going to plough through all the detail that the Coalition has pulled out, or has already been discussed over several preceding weeks.

Much of the relevant stuff for social entrepreneurs was announced in the Big Society launch the previous week, with a Big Society Bank (also utilising money from unclaimed assets) providing finance to neighbourhood groups, social enterprises and charities; and also providing funding to intermediary bodies with a "track record of supporting and growing social enterprises". There's also the national citizens service, as well documented elsewhere, and the training up of independent community organisers to establish neighbourhood groups. It will be interesting to see where community organiser ends and early-stage social entrepreneur begins, I think...or when neighbourhood groups formalise their work and begin to trade or win contracts.

There is some interesting back to employment stuff, including a community learning fund to help people restart their careers, and "Work For Yourself" which gives access to mentoring + loans. Like Labour, employee-led and owned co-ops to deliver public services feature, as does the opportunity for parents to start new schools (still a very emerging space, this one). An intriguing one, and one that could be really interesting (given so many of the barriers are about culture, mindset and understanding) is recognising participation in social action in civil servants' appraisals.

Not much revelation then, but reading both these party documents, and acknowledging that government is only part of the social entrepreneurship world and space (and that there's much that needs detail and grounding), one has to stand back and recognise how much more recognition and understanding there is across the political spectrum of what this movement can contribute.

Brief social entrepreneurship thoughts on the Labour manifesto

Labour's manifesto came out today, as you may have noticed from the ubiquitous blanket coverage everywhere. So I won't linger on the subject. Suffice to say that the Coalition have done a good job of pulling out all the relevant detail for social enterprise + social entrepreneurs in the document. So that we don't have to ;0)

I'm most happy to see the "Promote the creation of more social enterprise hubs in every community", which was one of the five big calls in our Social Entrepreneurs Manifesto (authored with, by and for social entrepreneurs and other support agencies). I would add that I think it is crucial that these hubs or community anchors have people development and support built into them: as we all know, the most important assets in a community are the human ones, and the most important resources are human too. It might also be interesting to think about where these might be situated: where are the social enterprise shared spaces in smaller towns, rural areas, or deprived boroughs? (there's a session coming up at Shine about exactly this)

Otherwise, much as expected: Social Investment Bank, Social Impact Bonds (both of which I think we'll see from the Conservatives also, though they may be called something slightly different), more right to request, more asset transfer, and so on. Good to see community shares and community land trusts in there as well, along with some useful financial exclusion stuff: often overlooked but potentially massively important initiatives. A disappointing lack of numbers though; the only things with a number next to it are the Future Jobs Fund (to be continued to support 200,000 jobs) and the Social Investment Bank (£75m): that's to be expected, I guess, as the reality and detail that flow from the language become apparent over the next five years of whichever government wins.