This article starts out by listing a number of entrepreneurs and explaining how they succeeded by managing to redefine a suboptimal equilibrium and replace it with a new better way of doing things. What is the difference between this and a "Social Entrepreneur" is the question I'm left asking myself. Did these people not make countless lives better in someway. Ebay makes peoples lives better, the PC makes peoples lives better, Fedex....etc. People readily adopted these new systems because they were better than the old ones - is that not a service to society? Netflix saves huge amounts of fuel simply because people no longer make a round trip to the movie rental place every time they want to see a movie, instead the postal service delivers Netflix on a trip that would already be made. This article answers this question with the concept of defining social entrepreneurship as placing the social good as the starting element and working toward a sustainable profitability within a frame work of creating a new better equilibrium. This is a much more exact and useful definition that has much more currency than any other I've seen so far.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
on "Reshaping Social Entrepreneurship by PAUL C. LIGHT"
"Whereas philanthropists almost always
focus on the individual, venture capitalists almost
always focus on the leadership team and the organization
to back it."
The smart money is on the venture capitalist not the philanthropists on this one.
It seems that in the world of implementers there is a shortage of ideas to overcome problems and in the world of ideas there is a shortage of people who can implement those ideas. Pulling together the team that has people from both backgrounds working together is what is needed. It is why the above quote makes so much sense to me.
The very broad definition of social entrepreneur offered at the end of Light's article seems to just call that group working for change by a new name, these are the activists, the abolitionists, the suffragists of past. The same people doing basically the same work just a different name. Why can't we learn from them as much as anyone can learn from looking at someone's actions. In spite of this academic discussion of what is or isn't a social entrepreneur. It seems that what makes someone a success is the nerve to just go out and do it and worry about finding people with the skills to make it happen and figure out the details later.
focus on the individual, venture capitalists almost
always focus on the leadership team and the organization
to back it."
The smart money is on the venture capitalist not the philanthropists on this one.
It seems that in the world of implementers there is a shortage of ideas to overcome problems and in the world of ideas there is a shortage of people who can implement those ideas. Pulling together the team that has people from both backgrounds working together is what is needed. It is why the above quote makes so much sense to me.
The very broad definition of social entrepreneur offered at the end of Light's article seems to just call that group working for change by a new name, these are the activists, the abolitionists, the suffragists of past. The same people doing basically the same work just a different name. Why can't we learn from them as much as anyone can learn from looking at someone's actions. In spite of this academic discussion of what is or isn't a social entrepreneur. It seems that what makes someone a success is the nerve to just go out and do it and worry about finding people with the skills to make it happen and figure out the details later.
on 'The Meaning of "Social Entrepreneurship" J. Gregory Dees'
I find it very easy to identify as a designer with the definition that Say and Schumpeter set out for entrepreneurs. That an entrepreneur is one who through some manner reinvent the system and reallocate resources in a new and more productive way. What can be considered more productive is of course up for debate. Is it to use fewer resources in production or to create a product with a higher value, or one that has a different end point from previous iterations? The Druker definition also fits in well with a designers outlook, there is an element of blind pursuit of a goal in Druker's definition. The design process starts with a challenge and seeks a solutions thinking free of many real constraints as those constraints are added into the equation new solutions are thought of to work around those new challenges. There is in this a marshaling of resources that do not yet exist in reality and an assumption that those resources can be obtained.
There is something that I find troubling about Dee's concept of what a Social Entrepreneur is. Surely it is very difficult to place a monetary value on the social good that an enterprise produces, but to say that social value should be supported by contributions (not investments) from outside sources as part of a social entrepreneurial venture is very troubling. What is the difference between this and an aid organization except a thin veneer of fees for service. In my mind social entrepreneurship represents the targeting of a different, less profitable, capitalistic opportunity. Pure investment seeks to take as small of an investment of capitol and turn it into as large of a return as possible regardless of external factors or values outside the monetary sphere. Social entrepreneurship in my view should seek to find those cracks where a sustainable profit can be made providing a service for those in need, even if the use of capitol is not maximized to produce the greatest return on investment. The end goal and measure of success has to be profitability, because without it there can not be sustainability of the enterprise. By making profitability the central element of success it ensures that the market is in fact being served and that the good or service provided to the customer is worth the price, not just that the social entrepreneur thinks that they are serving a customer when in fact they are providing a subsidized handout. Aid organizations are the appropriate entities for fulfilling such needs which can not be met by social entrepreneurs.
There is something that I find troubling about Dee's concept of what a Social Entrepreneur is. Surely it is very difficult to place a monetary value on the social good that an enterprise produces, but to say that social value should be supported by contributions (not investments) from outside sources as part of a social entrepreneurial venture is very troubling. What is the difference between this and an aid organization except a thin veneer of fees for service. In my mind social entrepreneurship represents the targeting of a different, less profitable, capitalistic opportunity. Pure investment seeks to take as small of an investment of capitol and turn it into as large of a return as possible regardless of external factors or values outside the monetary sphere. Social entrepreneurship in my view should seek to find those cracks where a sustainable profit can be made providing a service for those in need, even if the use of capitol is not maximized to produce the greatest return on investment. The end goal and measure of success has to be profitability, because without it there can not be sustainability of the enterprise. By making profitability the central element of success it ensures that the market is in fact being served and that the good or service provided to the customer is worth the price, not just that the social entrepreneur thinks that they are serving a customer when in fact they are providing a subsidized handout. Aid organizations are the appropriate entities for fulfilling such needs which can not be met by social entrepreneurs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)