Social Entrepreneur is an Oxymoron

Kjerstin is right of course that real change is not accomplished by one magical hero waving a wand or single-handedly pursuing some Herculean challenge. Real change is a process made possible by dozens or hundreds or millions of individual contributions towards whatever the goal might be.

Nevertheless - the public at large is going to follow the saga more closely if it can be told in a simple way - and "simple" in this sense is typically achieved by conflating the contributions of the many into the accomplishments of the one. Dave Dellinger (WWII conscientious objector and member of the Chicago Seven) made the point in a class I took that the film about Gandhi, while moving and inspiring, did the disservice of making the man seem unreproducibly virtuous - of making everyone in the audience believe that Gandhi was enough different than you and I that we should never expect to accomplish what he did.

The trick seems to be that one has to know one's audience. When discussing FORGE with people who just might pursue social change as a career - your charming and authentic humility will be encourage them to get involved. When discussing FORGE (or any social change enterprise) with those unlikely to start their own nonprofits or dive headlong into saving the world - you probably do the cause more good by making the story more personal and allowing yourself to take a bit more of the credit. Donors give more, for instance, to inspiring and heroic leaders than to efficient nonprofit bureaucrats.

All humans long to be told a good story. Not everyone longs to be in one. The heroic simplification is, I agree, not for your peers or even your protégés, but it is useful with just about everyone else . . .

Hi Robert,

You make a really important point about the value that a simple, human-centered narrative has on inspiring and motivating people to action. Responding with what thoughts come to mind:

1) Is there some inherent limit to the size of action/response/motivation that this kind of narrative can produce? I certainly believe that its the easiest motivational narrative to tell, but I wonder if (as you suggested), it may be limiting in the longer-term. For people to be truly motivated to make the large-scale behavioral changes we know are necessary to solve the ills of this world, do they not need to see themselves as the central character in the story? I wonder if this distinction (the easy-to-succeed-but-with-an-ultimately-bounded-response narrative of the hero's journey vs. the hard-to-succeed-but-when-done-right-ridiculously-powerful narrative of the collective journey) is what defines the difference between a successful social enterprise and a successful social movement.

2) Who is the most successful "social entrepreneur"-branded changemaker you know? Yunus? Farmer? Novogratz? (all of whom started before the term was at all commonplace) Not to take anything away from them, but we need the narrative to resonate and reach further! That doesn't mean that there are no leaders - a leader/face/spokesperson is probably 100% necessary for all the reasons you mentioned above - but the way that their narrative is told deserves some examination. People didn't follow MLK or Gandhi or Mandela because they were inspired by how amazing those individuals were. They followed them because those leaders communicated a vision and a story that people resonated with. It was an inclusive story, one that made each individual who joined the movement a hero in their own right. And thus it motivated people to go far beyond their normal comfort range, to risk and sacrifice for the collective vision, and at the end of the day to walk away knowing that THEY were an invaluable part of something much, much bigger. I think that we need a little more of that leadership :)

Dear Kjerstin

First of all, I think your post was interesting and thought provoking. I agree with Robert about the power of a simple story brought forward through a compelling human element.

I also agree with you that no enterprise is made by the founder alone but through the hard work of a number of other people who own it up as their mission in life. However, few things came to mind on reading your article :

1) is your discomfort only with Social Entrepreneurs or also with Social Entrepreneurship and social Enterprises cause these are also other important forms of the term. I work in the area of inclusive growth and am the co-founder of a consultancy in India, and when we use the term Social Entrepreneurship, we in no way mean to refer to or glorify one individual only, but identify it with a business model, an organizational cultural aspect and most importantly an 'Approach' to problem solving.

2) Secondly, while a number of people in the organization are responsible for its success and should at no cost be ignored; not everyone can be a leader. Many well-meaning, intelligent people are looking for strong leader that they can follow to make a meaningful difference to their own and other's lives. In such a context the value of one single entrepreneur is very important too, an individual who takes complete ownership and helps guide and lead the way for a number of others who believe in the organization that he has started. Looking at an organization through a group lens alone can dilute ownership at times too.

I do hope to read more from you on this debate as well as other articles in the future.

Regards
Kamini

Hi Kamni,

Thanks for your comment. I should have been more clear in my post that I actually really like the terms 'social entrepreneurship' and 'social enterprise'. Its just the hyper-focus on THE social entrepreneur that I find problematic. I also fully believe, as you said, that leaders and catalysts are necessary and should be recognized. But part of being a leader is telling the right story, right? I think that the pressure that the world of social entrepreneurship (and media in general) has put onto the glorification of the individual social entrepreneur may be distorting what 'best story' can and should be told. This is not necessarily the fault of the entrepreneur themselves - narratives are often imposed from the outside and then become hard to shake or fight off.

Hi Kjerstin. Enjoy your blog and the FORGE story so far.

I would say that I think the 'social entrepreneur' as heroic, all-conquering, saving-the-world-on-their-own individual is a myth. The UK and European view of social entrepreneurship, especially, recognises the importance of a leader / founder, but also that social entrepreneurs thrive through networks, building effective teams (who can do what they can't) and, in some cases, creating movements. The social change might not have happened without the spark of these individuals, but it also wouldn't have happened without countless others. [something we've been talking about for years; see The Myth and Truth of the Heroic Individual, a post from 2006... http://socialentrepreneurs.typepad.com/[…]/the_myth_and_tr.html]

Indeed, at the School for Social Entrepreneurs (http://www.sse.org.uk), we would say success can be judged in different ways. If a social entrepreneur who comes through our programme is self-aware enough to know what they are not good at + don't know, honest enough to admit it, and resourceful / connected enough to know where and how to get it, then they will thrive in whatever they are trying to achieve, at whatever scale. That, for us, is success.

Finally, I guess it seems slightly contradictory to me to have a post saying that we need to dwell less on the individual social entrepreneur, when in January it was announced that you are one of three social entrepreneurs taking investment in...yourself as an individual social entrepreneur (see http://www.socialedge.org/[…]/invest-in-me-take-my-equity). Surely that's only perpetuating this emphasis + heroification (if that's a word) of the individual?

Hi Nick,

All great points you raise. You're right - leaders are both critically valuable and inevitably human. We shouldn't expect any more or less. I don't have any problems with a leader being an important part of any social change movement's narrative...but I do get concerned when it becomes the dominant or only part. How can the narratives be inclusive without over- (or under-) selling the role of any one individual? I just fear that with the strong emphasis on social entrepreneurs (to the extent that many people call themselves social entrepreneurs as a job title), we may be establishing norms around the way that social change works that are both inaccurate and ultimately disempowering.

Thanks for bringing up the subject of the life investment and the apparent contradictions there. You raise a very good question. There is no question about the fact that putting yourself 'up for sale' as Saul, Jon and I did a) calls attention to yourself, and b) indicates a high level of faith in yourself (however accurate). The difference that I see between this choice and the issues I raised in my post about the focus on The Social Entrepreneur detracting from the social movement they are trying to start is that for the Life Investment, I am representing only myself and I am selling only myself. I am not asking you to donate to FORGE or trying to use it as a method of spreading FORGE's story. My choices with what investment I do or do not take and how I spend that money are ultimately completely personal. You won't find a single mention of the 'story' in any of FORGE's literature, news, etc. For the Life Investment, the story IS the person because there is nothing else there - ie, its not taking away from a story about a movement. Of course, because I currently run an organization, there is the risk that my decision may impact the way people view and understand FORGE. That is a risk I took as both a leader (looking out for the good of my organization) and an individual (looking to do more and better things in the future). I certainly hope it was the right risk to take.

Hi Kjerstin,

Interesting post. I'd say in response that no social enterprise, including your own Forge, could have begun without a founder. A social enterprise doesn't occur with a big bang or through spontaneous combustion, it begins with one person. For Forge to begin, you had to first work in refugee camps, you had to recognize refugees as a neglected solution to many of the issues that plague sub-Saharan Africa, and then you had to build the infrastructure for an organization that could empower refugees to affect change in their immediate environment. You could have waited for someone else to do it, you could have waited to implement your plans after you'd managed to persuade others to join your cause, or you could just do it on a wing and a prayer and hope others would follow. According to everything I've read about Forge, you went with the third option, and others eventually followed.

I feel that every social enterprise is a Quixotic one at the beginning, and few people can afford to or are willing to begin the journey with the founder. I don't know one social enterprise that began with a Spock-like Vulcan mind-meld by committee.There's an internal logic to it: founder begins the process; persuades others; the social enterprise becomes a fully formed, free standing, independent, functioning entity; the founder relays the baton to others.

I recall hearing John Woods, founder of Room To Read, say that people come up to him all the time to tell him how they wish they could be doing what he's doing but can't, and give their reasons: the wife won't approve, I have kids going to college, I need to be where I am, I don't have the money, I don't have the time etc. The litany is long for not doing something. If one has to wait for all the ducks to line up, for the planets to align, for a cosmic poke in the eye, there'd be no social enterprises. I know many people who will support, join and promote my social enterprise ... in the fullness of time, when things are better, down the line. Who can wait that long?

The field needs energetic, restless people who will jump right in and begin now, people who can't wait, who don't want to wait for perfection and pitch and tilt before they begin something. Call them what you want, narcissistic, crazy, steam roller, first runner in a relay race, whatever.

Social change is indeed a team sport, but social enterprise is the precedent to social change and not social change itself. Social enterprise needs founders to begin things, or we'd all be waiting for Godot or night to fall.

I also very much appreciate the sentiment of your post, but agree largely with Gail.

It of course "takes a village" for a social enterprise to amount to anything, and nobody knows this better than a "social entrepreneur."

But it takes one or two very brave souls to embark and carry through on a venture for it to ever stand a chance of moving beyond an idea. Nobody knows that better than the people who support the entrepreneur.

The founders' willingness to take innumerable risks, and their continued optimism and tenacity in the face of setbacks is critical to the survival of the start-up. And at the same time the entrepreneur is constantly buoyed by the support of the people around her. The entrepreneur-supporter relationship is wholly symbiotic in this way.

Like any stereotype, that of the hero entrepreneur may only be partially true, but that nugget of truth here really does matter. And beyond that, propogating the myth is one way we can say thanks to people like you for having the courage to forge ahead and give us something to believe in.

Hi Gail and Mike,

Actually, I think we're on exactly the same page when it comes to the importance of the founder. I can certainly speak from experience that the founder takes on the lions-share of the risk and the burden - especially in the early stages. And yes - every movement needs leaders and leaders who have taken risks should be at least somewhat recognized for their results. But what is so wrong with just the word Founder? That's what I consider myself: a founder of an organization. I also consider myself to be naturally entrepreneurial, but find myself choking on the label "social entrepreneur" when the conversation requires such language. I think these two terms (Founder vs. Entrepreneur) differ in 2 ways:

1) Objectivity: The word "Founder" is a precise term - if there is some entity and you are the one that launched it, you are a founder. No presumption needed. "Entrepreneur", however, is just not as clear-cut. It connotates a certain set of characteristics that are subjectively determined. Who is to be that judge?

2) Focus of Attention: the word "Founder" inherently implies something larger than you - something that you started but that also exists outside of and beyond you. "Entrepreneur" doesn't do that - the attention is on the characteristics of the individual rather than the venture he or she is doing. So when it is applied in a social sense, as in Social Entrepreneur, to me it comes across as contradictory. Why call attention to yourself when your mission is social?

One thing I should admit is that my biggest issue with the term is when people apply it to themselves (and yes, there are countless twitter profiles and FB profiles in which people define themselves as a 'social entrepreneur'). It is much less presumptuous to have it applied on you from the outside. But the term still, no matter how applied, subtly shifts the attention from the greatness of the cause to the greatness of the individual. And I, for one, think that is a dangerous thing to do.

If we all changed our title to 'social cog' it would be like Starbucks referring to 'baristas' as 'partners'.

The key question would be, does equity of recognition via titles make an organization more effective and does it make a difference in a social venture? We can comment all day, but lets get some hard data (either in ventures or social ventures) to show that changing titles has an effect on success. There are a ton of 'me-too' startups out there staffed with people that are as passionate about their tech as we are with our social models. It would be interesting to see a correlation of founder titles and success. The social venture space is probably too small to find similar ventures with different levels of success and different titles.

to replace "social entrepreneur"?

Social innovator? All about the innovator, I suspect...

Changemaker? less helpfully descriptive than SE, but equally pompous

do-gooder? you've expressed your dislike for the term in other posts...

Social Project Founder? descriptive, but bizarre. And "Founder" is potentially ego-driven, implying "I started all this!", rather than another leadership label (president, organizer) which simply implies that you lead/organize.

Bad Ass? I think we're getting close... :)

For mostly practical reasons I think the term Social Entrepreneur is good enough. Team players like you, Kjerstin, will deflect the attention and include supporters, and that's the best any of us can hope for.
 

I too love examining the meaning of terms, but Kjerstin’s logic is flawed. An entrepreneur is someone who changes the way things are done by developing new processes, products or services. A social entrepreneur is doing this in the social sector. While entrepreneurs may have some strong character traits that may make them appear person-centric, these traits allow them to see what others don’t, persevere when others would throw in the towel and tolerate risk that would make others crap in their pants. (See my article http://ventureneer.com/vblo[…]s-do-you-have-what-it-takes) Entrepreneurs sacrifice a lot – time, money and even personal relationships making their vision into a reality. Some like Steve Jobs make a lot of money, but quite frankly, he earns it and so too do his counterparts in the social sector. Social entrepreneur is an appropriate term. For more read my article http://ventureneer.com/vblog/what-social-entrepreneur.

Hi Geri,

Thanks for your comment. I think you may have misunderstood my argument. I never meant to indicate that I don't believe in your definition of an entrepreneur (changing the way things are done by developing new processes, products or services) or the importance of applying such skills to the social sector. I certainly didn't intend to convey that 'social entrepreneurs' as we've come to understand them don't exist, or that bringing ones entrepreneurial traits to solving social problems is problematic. I also don't think that the *definition* of a social entrepreneur is incorrect, though I do think that the narrative created around it is often incomplete and exclusive. I just have major concerns about how the term - and the focus of attention that the term creates - is serving the broader social change movement. And yes, when one applies the term to his or herself (which I have admittedly done myself), I find that to be self-contradictory.

I tend to agree with you Geri but also understand what Kjerstin is saying. After spending the last 15 years interviewing and writing about social (and "civic") entrepreneurs, I can tell you that most of them don't want to be the feature of an article or a chapter in a book. Seeking interviews, I had to convince every one of them that they would be helping others learn and benefit from their successes...that people would relate better to people than institutions. In fact, I had to convince one hundred of them because they struggled with wanting to focus only on their cause and those who helped build it. They didn't even know they were called "entrepreneur" anything.

But I think the focus has value. This is a growing trend built by social entrepreneurs. They deserve some recognition for giving up personal lives, 401Ks, 6-figure incomes, and selling off homes to go help people they don't even know... and to come up with answers to costly problems that have plagued society for far too long. We know recognition isn't why they did it. The value that comes from focusing on the individual is what we can learn from them (not the group) to successfully replicate what they're doing. That's why I'm building the National Institute for Civic Enterprise (NICENetwork) so we can establish a knowledge-base of successful human service causes launched by these "individuals." That doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge the group ... volunteers, donors, and businesses who carry out the mission... and I wish there was a new term that better describes "the group." But we recognize and try to learn from Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and others who make major contributions to business and society. I believe it's also important in our society to acknowledge the social entrepreneur as one we can learn from for their contribution as well.
debra@nicenetwork.org
The Power of One: The Unsung Everyday Hero Rescuing America's Cities

What it seems that we are talking about here is not just the words, "Social Entrepreneurship," but rather what they imply, and the nature of leadership. We're talking about how social entrepreneurship organizations get founded, and how to redirect the attention from a charismatic founder to the collective effort of every team member.

Sadly, some nonprofit leaders still do not understand the concept of elevating the team to motivate the team.

I feel that Kjerstin has spoken like a true leader, and further, like a true leader with emotional intelligence. To put the focus on the efforts of your team, rather than the executive director, is a smart move. It means that everyone shares the pride and respect of doing well. It also means that everyone is more motivated to help each other. And it's good for your business bottom line too. People who feel respected at work are not going to jump ship. And in the field of nonprofits, where salaries are miniscule, goodwill and respect are often the things that motivate you to go to work.

Kjerstin, I love how you said "Social Change is a Team Sport." And I do hope that this economic downturn encourages more social entrepreneurs and nonprofits to join together in coalitions where they can collectively use their resources, set aside ego-flaming, and actually work together to solve the same problems.

Mazarine
info@wildwomanfundraising.com
http://wildwomanfundraising.com

KE
As usual you have brought creativity and a new view to an old topic. Your reasoning re: the term "social entrepreneur" focuses on the individual and not the collective that is benefited makes sense in a theoretical world, but not in a practical world. As a person with a driving passion who has created an effective organization through your own intelligence, perseverance, hard work and willingness to sacrifice and keep going, you are the embodiment of a social heroine. And as such you inspire others to do the same.

This is how we grow- how the field grows and the number of people who are protecting the world instead of destroying it grows. Yes, it is about "them", but it is the "I" who makes it happen and the "I" who inspires others. That is the reality, regardless of the theory. So enjoy your heroine status - you deserve every bit of it - and keep inspiring more heroines (and heroes)

Kjerstin, thank you for this wise discussion. The terms we use are so important, and it's important to think about what those terms can mean to different people.

It amazes me that entrepreneurs are seen as such solo beacons of light in starting an organization. Absolutely untrue. The amount of people who have helped; the right timing of your venture; the hardwork and diligence of so many, many team members is what got you to where you are today. We have to be cognizant of this. We built together.

A good social entrepreneur has a vision and starts the organization. Equally important they grow a team with a social entrepreneurship mindset--team members may not want to start a social venture themselves, but they care about business principles. They care about creating value for our communities. They care about operations and all it takes to run a successful ventures. And the social entrepreneur CEO must recognise this commitment by these important team members. Then, the CEO watches and nurtures the social entrepreneurship qualities in each team member. This combination of social entrepreneurship builds a successful team, successful leadership and successful implementation of the vision and a successful social entrepreneurship venture.

Sincerely,
Pamela Hawley
Founder and CEO
UniversalGiving

phawley@universalgiving.org
www.universalgiving.org

Living and Giving blog
www.pamelahawley.wordpress.com

Hey Kjersten,

You have a lot going on in this article, most of which is colloquial, yet makes it very difficult to deconstruct and debate. As such, I'll take time to tease apart the individual arguments that you make in this article and reconstruct everything in a way that I feel makes the conversation flow better.

The 'Social' in social-e is not about you:
- Disagree. In fact, it's almost always about you, and lots of other people. Steve Jobs makes great products that make people who use them feel great, and the nice side effect is that he makes money - lots of it.
- Most social entrepreneurs from my experience feel an intense passion for the solution to a problem. You have to be in order to create a complete change the social fabric and social institutions. Anything less is usually spinning wheels.

The 'Entrepreneur' means it's about you, you, you:
- For every "movement" there is a recognized leader. Someone has to be first to go against the grain. There's your leader. Do they sometimes get too much attention? Yes. But someone has to be first. By creating the right organizational structure and more people around a social entrepreneur, though, the social change can scale and make significant impact.
- Yes, you need many people to agree and follow the first person's lead to enact change. Steve Jobs may be the leader, driving the vision, but he has/had people like Steve Wozniak and Jonathan Ive who also see the vision and help push it forward.

Attention turned from Collective movement to Individuals:
- For most people, this is not the case. In our tight social-e circle, the echo chamber makes it the case. Bill Drayton is particularly "guilty" of this because his goal with Ashoka is to identify individuals doing great things and help them scale up impact. When talking with people "outside" our tight circle, people refer to Kiva as a whole and they don't know who is leading the organization. This is to be expected.
- In some cases, the person is even more the focus (Apple). There are a variety of reasons for this, and I personally feel it has to do with the forceful personality and showmanship of Steve Jobs. Does anyone know the entrepreneur who started Whitepages, Zoho, or Zynga? Probably not. Not unless you run in those social circles. But a lot of people use their services/products.
- In the academic entrepreneurship literature, there are many methodological and definitional problems inherent in the approach based on the traits and/or psychological profiles of entrepreneurs. This, I believe, is the exact same with social-e. But I still think the individual is important.

Belittle Movement Because of the Focus on the Individual:
- I personally feel this rarely happens. I stand to be corrected, but the only problem I foresee is if a movement is tied to an individual and that individual is involved with a scandal of sorts.

Why is the social even needed?
- Yes, entrepreneur's change the world, create jobs, and create wealth for society at large. But in my personal opinion, social entrepreneurship is about helping the traditionally disenfranchised, disadvantaged, excluded parts of society. Creating a casual gaming company can be very lucrative and can attract significant investment, but it doesn't "solve" poverty.
- If entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship are essentially the same thing, tell that to venture capitalists.
- If people are concerned about what "social" means, I think the Millenium Development Goals provide an operationalization of social needs.

Overall, there is much to be discussed in this article, and I hope this comment provides a much better structure moving forward.

Best,
Travis
http://gumballcapital.org/

Kjerstin knows that Steve Jobs did not create Apple -- tens of thousansd of people did. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if many who never got rich at Apple worked as hard or harder. But it was the desire to make money that kept it all rolling.

Social change leaders are driven by what makes a more just and sustainable world, in other words authentic structural social change. And this has only occurred, sustainably, when others are engaged, through authentic dialogue and collaboration, in their own economic, social, and culutual liberaton. The cult of leadership can be both inspiring and dangerous. Obama had me at... "We are all Americans"... I continue to be stunned by the guy... but he will only be effective as President if he can retain the mind and heart of a community organizer. He would have never called himself a "social entrepreneur" because of the inherent egoism of the term and because it short-circuits the process of collective dialogical transformation that he saw and facilitated on Chicago's South Side. The reward for that work is internal and profound.

Finally, at the time, it must be noted, while involved in that work, he was no hero of the press or the powers that be - any more than Ghandi or King, or Mandela or Tubman or Gueverra - until long after the changes they had helped to birth took root. None of them started out being polite, popular, or with it. They were outcasts. They identified with the work, and not the other way around.

And critically, real social change workers ask filter questions for their own activity: who is paying for this activity and who is benefitting from it - long and short term, and are those that are affected by the allocation decisions the ones making them - and will there be power reallignments if we succeed? And how can I assure that this progress is NOT identified with me - so I can assure it will continue?

Kjerstin rightly identifies the term "social entrepreneur" as an oxymoron, not unlike "human capital", and for similar reasons. She has done us a great service.

Hi Kjerstin,

I seem to have been coerced into creating an account on this site to comment on this, which is fine but I feel like a bit of a fraud as my own contribution to social enterprise thus far has been minimal to non-existent. Anyway, I wanted to say thank you for encouraging me to change that fact a little. I think you make an excellent point about the presentation of social entrepreneurs in the media - I for one always assumed that I was far too "normal" to be able do anything of value for the wider community.

I feel that on my own that is probably (sadly) true: the idea of "proudly joining hands as small cogs in a big wheel" seems much more achievable to me. I'm working on this principle for now. I'm currently trying to get involved with an internet-based project called EVOKE, which you may well have heard of. It was through this that I found Social Edge and this blog post.

Is there anywhere else that you write abotu what you do? I'd love to find out more.

Jane