Social Enterprise - Define or Describe?

One of the perennial questions that hangs around the world of Social Enterprise is "What is it?"

Often this is answered with a not very helpful, "It's very hard to define!"
Those that try and answer often cite the various definitions dreamed up by Government, or some Social Enterprise body.

But is a definition the best way of answering the "What is Social Enterprise" question?

Almost by definition, a definition excludes. It limits what a social enterprise can, or should be.
If something is clearly defined, it rules out the fuzzy edges.
But those of us working as Social Entrepreneurs know that it is surrounded by fuzzy edges.

Some definitions rule out Sole Traders; some dismiss profit making companies; some forbid charities to call themselves Social Enterprise.

Why? Why would we do this?
Do we want to create a super-ethical world in our own image? To claim that only we are Social Enterprises?

Perhaps a more fruitful way forward, to encourage the growth of Social Enterprise and bring more people and companies into the fold is to use description, rather than definition.

A description doesn't need to be a full description; it even can appear contradictory with another description - as a pyramid can be described as a square, or a triangle, depending on perspective.

So how would we describe Social Enterprise?


Firstly we would look at its 3 bottom lines:
People, Planet, Profit.
And ask the business to describe where they sit on a continuum from doing harm , through neutral, to doing good.

Then look at 3 aspects of their business:
Product/Service, Company Management, Profit Destination.
And ask again where they would position their business from doing harm, through neutral, to doing good.

If a company exploits people and the environment, but makes loads of profit
by offering a product that harms its users, and they treat their staff badly to keep all the profit for themselves
Then it would be hard to describe them as a Social Enteroprise.

Likewise, if an organisation does wonders for people and the environment, treats their staff graciously but makes no profit as it is simply grant funded; then it too would find it difficult to be taken seriously as a social enterprise.

Between these 2 extremes we have a myriad of companies, individuals and organisations that would all describe themselves differently.

And if, after looking at where they are from these various perspectives, they want to describe themselves as a Social Enterprise, who are you, or I to argue?

Cameron

But is it an elephant?

"If you want to eat an elephant, do it one bite at a time"

This is very wise advice, for to try and stuff the whole thing in your mouth would indeed be impossible.

This is the advice given when tackling a large job, and it is just so self-evidently true that it is hard to argue against.

However - inherent in the advice is an assumption that big jobs always equal big animlas that require eating.

But what if some big jobs don't equate to elephants?
What if some big jobs equate more to the Grand Canyon that requires leaping.

You can't jump the Grand Canyon 1 metre at a time.
You have to do it all in one go, or not at all.

So while the elephant eating analogy is often true, we should remember it is not always the case.

The question to ask before apporaching any big job is therfore, "Is it an Elephant or a Canyon?" That will determine whether to do it methodically bit by bit, or with a huge run up and single leap.

Cameron

Improving Bus Services - but for whom?

I am a car driver. I love my car because I can get anywhere I want quickly and easily.
But it costs a fortune and when it breaks down I am left stranded.

"No problem, I'll go by bus" thought I just the other day, so I rang Traveline to get the details.
Quickly and easily I was told the time for the next bus into Durham - 4 miles away - and they even told me how much it was - £2.10 single and £3.10 return.
Not a bad price - and it turned up bang on time.
Brilliant!

Finding £3.10 in cash in my house is not easy, but I raided the change jar of a pocketful of 20ps and was on my way.

45 minutes later I arrived in Durham having gone on a very pleasant sojourn through the villages and shopping centres west of Durham.

And here is the big problem for me - as a car driver: 3/4 of an hour to go 4 miles.
At every opportunity for the bus to head towards Durham, it didn't!

Now if there was a feeder minibus that could take us Langley Parkers up to the main road, where we could get on a big bus and head straight to our destination, stopping only to pick up passengers from feeder services along the way, it would take far less time.

Surely this would be better. For me as a car driver, it certainly would.

But here is the surprising thing. When I asked a couple of my older female fellow passengers they said they would prefer to sit on a bus for an unnecessary half an hour each way than change along the way - even when I suggested that this hypothetical minibus could pick them up from home, and wait until the big bus arrived, they were not convinced.

I then asked what their response would be if this service of mine was introduced; would they complain. "No, we'd just get on with it".

So, a question is, do we need to be designing services around existing customers, or around potential new customers?

Hmmm . . . .

Cameron

Turning things the Right way up

Those of us who like to think we are designer thinkers, often refer to the current "system" and that we need to turn it on its head.

But we don't need to - things are already on their head. Our job is to turn them the right way up . . .

By even suggesting that we want to turn things on their head gives credance to the current way of working; it sounds dangerous and risky to turn things upsidedown.

It also risks giving the impression that just doing it different is enough, that we simply think the current way is wrong - whereas turning things "the right way up" hopefully gives our audiences the more accurate impression that we have a positive constructive solution.

Cameron

Right Brain-Left Brain

Google Chairman, Eric Schmidt, recently spoke out about the division between the Arts and Science in British education and the demise of the polymath.

Meanwhile Iain McGilchrist has written a well researched book describing the same thing. The Master and His Emissary, The Divided Brain and the Making of the Modern World roams across Philosophy, Psychology, History, Neurology, Art and more to make his point that Left Brain thinking has come to dominate individuals and Society......

Having dropped the names of some clever people, to get your attention and maybe add some weight ...........

The right side of the brain provides the big picture, the inspiration, the vision and to some people the Everything. See Jill Bolte Taylor's amazing stroke of insight on TED on this.

The left side of the brain specialises in the detail.

Einstein is said to have seen the concept of relativity in an instant and spent the rest of his life explaining it............

Linking the two hemispheres is the corpus callosum, sometimes seen as the bridge, though McGilchrist suggests it acts more like a gatekeeper.

Now, in a well balanced individual (back to Schmidt's polymath) the vision is passed to check the detail, the enriched vision is passed back for further envisioning and so on.

As with the individual, so with Society. And with the development of Society and the division of labour, has grown the separation of the visionaries and the mechanics.

I make no value judgement here, by the way. Just as I don't expect a plumber to sing opera (though it does happen sometimes) I would not want a bridge built by a philosopher. Horses for courses.

The point is: who leads?

Now, if we understand that the Right Brain tends to huge self belief, whilst the Left sees the (Health and Safety) dangers, then the answer is tricky and the balance of power is critical.

My point (backed up by the clever folks mentioned above and lots of others) is that the balance has swung too far to the risk averse.

Getting to some practical examples in our world of social enterprise; this is characterised mostly as a relationship between the public sector and the 3rd (4th?) sector. The current policy direction towards social enterprise diminishes the vision and passion of the sector, when the commissioning process gets to work. Where the best social enterprises spring from a need identified and a vision of delivery, the commissioning process starts with a spurious Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (more of which later), followed by a service specification generally constructed by committee and a huge wadge of paperwork with which to waste the time of anyone foolish or desperate enough to enter the game.

Power, in this process, is held by the risk averse, so we should not be surprised that it does not work very well.

If we take a look at some brilliant social enterprises, the process is different. Kids Company, for example, attracts almost no local authority funding, yet does the most amazing work on the streets of London. The Big Issue, similarly found its own way and seems to make a real difference.

The challenge for our sector, is to find the revenue streams that are not controlled by fear of what might go wrong, but drawn to schemes that may just go great!

Social Impact Bonds perhaps?

Anyway, there's my starter for discussion..........

Steve Day

The dangers of "partial logic"

Interesting piece on BBC website - http://bbc.in/p3AR2X - about black runners always winning the 100m. It shows how false logic affects all race relations. I suggest it is not false logic - but "partial logic". And that it infects virtually all aspects of our thinking.

Causation vs Correlation.
It can be demonstrated that global warming has increased with the decline in the number of pirates on the high seas.
Any amount of research could be carried out into the geograhical spread of pirates; the manufacture of their ships; the liklihood of their wearing of eye patches - and nothing would take away from the evidence-based fact that the less pirates there are, the more our climate warms up. It even coincides with the view of conventionial science that climate change is man-made, so all that evidence could be brought to bear to back up the pirate based theory.

With so many factors affecting everything, we must be very wary of finding patters of correlation and assuming causation.

Perspective
The term "strategic overview" is often used as if it is a good thing - and it sometimes is, for getting a strategic overview!
But it is not very good for much else.
And who is it useful for? Strategists!
But what happens when strategists sit too far away from the situation?
Well, try using Google Maps without the zoom function, and you'll soon realise how limited strategies are when trying to find your actual destination.
Strategists also make an assumption that because they don't know the issues in our communities in any detail, that we don't.
So they tell us what they do know - that smoking is bad for us; that children are getting fatter; that this community is poorer than that community . . . all the stuff that we already know - because we live here.
All that is fairly harmless, until we get to the practicalities of dealing with these problems.
From the perspective of a strategic overview, 'Michael' doesn't qualify for any business support because the town he lives in is not poor enough - despite his own, very real, personal circumstances.
Meanwhile, 'Peter' who is a lot better off can access unlimited support, because the detached house he owns outright is in a deprived village.

A Solution? - Designer Thinking?

In the world of product design, innovation and user experience are key.
From the Hovermower to the iPad, the history of product design is brimful of new ways of doing things - an all are focussed on User Experience. They are easy to use, efficient, effective, affordable and available.
They are driven by competition, with commercial advantage creating a reward for risk taking and happy customers.

And in the Public Realm?
So why do we not have this flurry of continual service improvements in the public realm? Do we need competition to bring it about?
Or can we find reward in the social advantage of meeting our non financial incentives?
Can we not get excited about seeing people living healthier, happier lives?
Why is that not enough to force us into thinking creatively - really creatively?

There is a world full of social entrepreneurs out here.
People working at community level that can draw on the strategic overview, but translate it into useable services for individuals.
People that are not stupid - that can differentiate between causation and correlation
People that can design, as well as deliver, the services at the point of need.

As the money dries up in the public sector, are those with shrinking budgets prepared to relinquish their hold over them? Or do we have to take it for ourselves?

Cameron Gordon

Changing Cafe (owners) Culture

If you go to any bar, pub, cafe or restaurant in Germany, there is no standing at the bar waiting to be served.
Simply take a seat and a professional waiter will come and take your drinks order.

This is obviously better for the customer - but we believe it is also much better for the pub / cafe owner.