Social enterprise Q&A sneak preview
I just answered 8 questions about social enterprise for a CUNY system student newspaper. Click the link below for the Q&A.
1. What does social entrepreneurship mean to you?
The key word is hybrid--social enterprise blends commercial and noncommercial values. Although specific definitions vary, the term tends to refer to a venture that combines public benefit with characteristics traditionally associated with for-profit enterprise, such as innovation, efficiency and financial return.
Personally, I view social enterprise as part of a broader rethinking of business itself.
2. Is there a difference in your mind between social entrepreneurship, social innovation, and the non-profit world?
Yes and no. Social innovation and entrepreneurship have been core elements of the nonprofit world for millennia, long before the word "nonprofit" became the term of choice. Yet social entrepreneurship is also commonly used to refer to a movement that transcends the boundaries of nonprofit organizations. From the latter perspective, social enterprise is a category that cuts across legal forms, encompassing both nonprofit and for-profit entities.
3. How did you get involved in social entrepreneurship?
While working on my doctoral dissertation, I became fascinated with the interplay of mission, money and meaning. That prompted me to go to law school to study nonprofit organizations law and corporate identity.
4. What organization(s) are you currently involved with, what is their mission?
The Wilson Center for Social Entrepreneurship at Pace University, where I'm the Wilson Professor of Social Entrepreneurship. Our mission is to study social enterprise and to hone the risk-taking spirit and managerial skills of social entrepreneurs.
5. How does your organization succeed in that mission and stay financially viable?
By hacking into the CUNY mainframe and depositing each fraction of a penny into our account at Pace. You know, like Superman III.
That, and the generous support of Grant and Helene Wilson.
6. Is it possible to pursue a high-income, high-powered, high-status professional career and be a social entrepreneur/social innovator simultaneously?
The answer to this question depends largely on your view of what constitutes a social enterpreneur.
If you limit the category to people who work primarily for nonprofit organizations or for-profit ventures that channel their most of their profits toward charitable goals, the honest answer to this question is that most ventures--including high-paid CEOs--will make significantly less than their mainstream for-profit counterparts.
Another way of answering this question is to say that it's possible if you split your time between pure for-profit and social ventures--say, by supplementing work at a hedge fund with a charity dedicated to social investment (e.g., the Robin Hood Foundation) or by using the money you made in business to promote social innovation (e.g., eBay's Jeff Skoll). Whether you are setting aside time for philanthropy as you work or after you retire, conceptually you are dividing life into sections, one of which is "social" and the other, not.
Personally, my answer to this question starts with another question: what does it really mean to be a social entrepreneur/innovator? Is there anything in today’s economy that does not relate in some way to the creation of social good? I would argue no--it is going to be impossible--or at least rather diffiicult--to maintain a high-income, high-powered, and high-status business without providing meaning to your employees and your customers.
This changes things. Instead of seeing social enterprise as an add-on, we have made it intrinsic to all forms of corporate life. A business that does not grasp this will fail even if it succeeds, because the public will eventually perceive its success as a threat. The resulting backlash—viable lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny, punitive taxes, sympathetic insurgents—can have negative fallout for the company and even the entire industry.
Strategic cooperation is nature’s way. Learn it, live it, or lose.
7. Many people feel comfortable simply sending a check to an organization that shares their beliefs and implements their goals. Do you think delegating social innovation to an individual or group is necessary and sufficient, or is it necessary to actively get involved through a chosen professional field?
The answer to this question will differ for each individual. Some people are averse to the sort of risks often found in organized charity or social enterprise. Some don't want to lose their idealism by getting mired in the day-to-day politics of charitable work (and there's a lot of politics, and it ain't pretty). Others live for being smack-dab in the middle of it.
Imposing a one-size-fits-all model behavior is dangerous. Altruism is at its essence a free act, and when a specific form of action is seen as necessary it can quickly turn from charity to chore. In addition, making direct participation in something branded as a social enterprise the sine qua non exponentially increases the likelihood that venturers will be unqualified and easily frustrated. It’s a recipe for failure that can lead to disillusionment.
Does this mean only a select few people should ever be active social entrepreneurs? No, not at all. Understood in relation to the whole system, no job is devoid of higher meaning--or as I like to say, every enterprise is a social enterprise. Does a garbage hauler have to do extra charitable work to create positive social change? A janitor? A lawyer? An accountant? Rather than guilt-tripping folks who aren't identifying themselves as do-gooders, we should help them understand the good they can do where they are.
8. Finally, and most important, what advice would you give, in 2 or 3 easy steps, for people who want to become social entrepreneurs but do not know how?
1. Don't listen to anyone who tells you how to be a social entrepreneur in 2 or 3 easy steps.
2. Stand perpendicular to the world. Look for things that other people do not see.
3. Make yourself valuable.
4. Beware of groupthink. Learn as much as you can about strategy and practice from people who don’t self-identify as social entrepreneurs.
5. Be cautious, but don't be afraid.
The key word is hybrid--social enterprise blends commercial and noncommercial values. Although specific definitions vary, the term tends to refer to a venture that combines public benefit with characteristics traditionally associated with for-profit enterprise, such as innovation, efficiency and financial return.
Personally, I view social enterprise as part of a broader rethinking of business itself.
2. Is there a difference in your mind between social entrepreneurship, social innovation, and the non-profit world?
Yes and no. Social innovation and entrepreneurship have been core elements of the nonprofit world for millennia, long before the word "nonprofit" became the term of choice. Yet social entrepreneurship is also commonly used to refer to a movement that transcends the boundaries of nonprofit organizations. From the latter perspective, social enterprise is a category that cuts across legal forms, encompassing both nonprofit and for-profit entities.
3. How did you get involved in social entrepreneurship?
While working on my doctoral dissertation, I became fascinated with the interplay of mission, money and meaning. That prompted me to go to law school to study nonprofit organizations law and corporate identity.
4. What organization(s) are you currently involved with, what is their mission?
The Wilson Center for Social Entrepreneurship at Pace University, where I'm the Wilson Professor of Social Entrepreneurship. Our mission is to study social enterprise and to hone the risk-taking spirit and managerial skills of social entrepreneurs.
5. How does your organization succeed in that mission and stay financially viable?
By hacking into the CUNY mainframe and depositing each fraction of a penny into our account at Pace. You know, like Superman III.
That, and the generous support of Grant and Helene Wilson.
6. Is it possible to pursue a high-income, high-powered, high-status professional career and be a social entrepreneur/social innovator simultaneously?
The answer to this question depends largely on your view of what constitutes a social enterpreneur.
If you limit the category to people who work primarily for nonprofit organizations or for-profit ventures that channel their most of their profits toward charitable goals, the honest answer to this question is that most ventures--including high-paid CEOs--will make significantly less than their mainstream for-profit counterparts.
Another way of answering this question is to say that it's possible if you split your time between pure for-profit and social ventures--say, by supplementing work at a hedge fund with a charity dedicated to social investment (e.g., the Robin Hood Foundation) or by using the money you made in business to promote social innovation (e.g., eBay's Jeff Skoll). Whether you are setting aside time for philanthropy as you work or after you retire, conceptually you are dividing life into sections, one of which is "social" and the other, not.
Personally, my answer to this question starts with another question: what does it really mean to be a social entrepreneur/innovator? Is there anything in today’s economy that does not relate in some way to the creation of social good? I would argue no--it is going to be impossible--or at least rather diffiicult--to maintain a high-income, high-powered, and high-status business without providing meaning to your employees and your customers.
This changes things. Instead of seeing social enterprise as an add-on, we have made it intrinsic to all forms of corporate life. A business that does not grasp this will fail even if it succeeds, because the public will eventually perceive its success as a threat. The resulting backlash—viable lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny, punitive taxes, sympathetic insurgents—can have negative fallout for the company and even the entire industry.
Strategic cooperation is nature’s way. Learn it, live it, or lose.
7. Many people feel comfortable simply sending a check to an organization that shares their beliefs and implements their goals. Do you think delegating social innovation to an individual or group is necessary and sufficient, or is it necessary to actively get involved through a chosen professional field?
The answer to this question will differ for each individual. Some people are averse to the sort of risks often found in organized charity or social enterprise. Some don't want to lose their idealism by getting mired in the day-to-day politics of charitable work (and there's a lot of politics, and it ain't pretty). Others live for being smack-dab in the middle of it.
Imposing a one-size-fits-all model behavior is dangerous. Altruism is at its essence a free act, and when a specific form of action is seen as necessary it can quickly turn from charity to chore. In addition, making direct participation in something branded as a social enterprise the sine qua non exponentially increases the likelihood that venturers will be unqualified and easily frustrated. It’s a recipe for failure that can lead to disillusionment.
Does this mean only a select few people should ever be active social entrepreneurs? No, not at all. Understood in relation to the whole system, no job is devoid of higher meaning--or as I like to say, every enterprise is a social enterprise. Does a garbage hauler have to do extra charitable work to create positive social change? A janitor? A lawyer? An accountant? Rather than guilt-tripping folks who aren't identifying themselves as do-gooders, we should help them understand the good they can do where they are.
8. Finally, and most important, what advice would you give, in 2 or 3 easy steps, for people who want to become social entrepreneurs but do not know how?
1. Don't listen to anyone who tells you how to be a social entrepreneur in 2 or 3 easy steps.
2. Stand perpendicular to the world. Look for things that other people do not see.
3. Make yourself valuable.
4. Beware of groupthink. Learn as much as you can about strategy and practice from people who don’t self-identify as social entrepreneurs.
5. Be cautious, but don't be afraid.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Social enterprise Q&A sneak preview.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://uncivilsociety.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/106
NEVERTHELESS, THE CIVIL LAW is and must be neutral about who has a more noble or rewarding faith. Office 2010The breakaway parishes ought to win everyMicrosoft Office 2010facet of the lawsuit not because their beliefs or their politics are better,Microsoft wordbut because both law andOffice 2007equity, along with common sense, Microsoft Office are onMicrosoft Office 2007their side. Not only does Virginia state lawOffice 2007 keythe Division StatuteOffice 2007 download explicitly apply to just such a situationOffice 2007 Professional as now exists, but the history Outlook 2010especially of The Falls Church argues againstMicrosoft outlookthe claims of the Virginia Diocese Microsoft outlook 2010 which they have disassociated.Windows 7 the ones who on their own
Qin 110126
I myself used to have all three of these Vibram five fingers characteristics. Not when I was an adventure-seeking, rambunctious toddler, but as an older high school teenager. It was at this stage that my foolish rascal tendencies were at their Vibram fivefingers kso highest. I would constantly complain, care for my friends more than my family, and in general would just talk all the time. Then came a moment when I wondered where I would end up. Would I remain vibram five fingers sprint on track to becoming a doctor like my parents wanted? Am I just going to keep acting like a child for the rest of my life? This moment would serve as the spark that set in motion a process of learning life lesson, molding me into the vibram five fingers classic person you're reading through your computer screen.