I'm reminded Charles, of my colleague's recollection of his university tutor, who advised him that it took more than passion to implement a world changing idea, it required being afflicted.

I don't know enough about Forge to determine what competition Kjerstin has in terms of others covering the same thing. As I read it, the competition is for donors.

There's clearly demand in terms of need over and above supply. As I was reminded recently in small scale efforts in Uganda, a kind of ad-hoc project collaboration on Facebook between virtual friends. There are plenty of high profile efforts in Uganda, including those of the Guardian newspaper and BBC Sport Aid, which may by virtue of their "paint it large and successful" approach, create a false public perception that things are being achieved on a major scale, whereas in fact it's barely touching the surface.

A network of friends and supporters around Stanford should be an immense asset in this web enabled world, something to exploit to full potential way beyond the small scale trust of relative strangers.

My own obligation is to keep a project going in Ukraine, provide funds for a one man effort from business profit, which in essence keeps a roof over his head, provides food and an internet connection, much as I'd like to do more.

How am I doing? Scraping along, as long as customers pay invoices sometime. While renting an outbuilding at home offers personal survival I can go close to 100% revenue if necessary to keep it alive while new business fails to materialise/

I'm planning to start a new collaboration which involves distributorship of a Bangladesh IT product, apply it here in the UK to a social market and render profit back to Ukraine efforts in the existing profit-for-purpose model. There will be several bottom lines here I expect, with perhaps a little support from the SE community to raise awareness.

As an organisation which launched on the basis of an idea about using the power of business and IT networking to tackle poverty, it's still rather difficult to be heard.

Jeff

I just want to say I love the conversations here on Social Edge - they all seem to hit on the key discussions that we ought to have but sometimes don't.

I think it's tough as an entrepreneur to know whether you actually have an idea worth pursuing or not. In my own experiences starting a student run social enterprise, we had lots of good feedback from lots of people in the field, including from many of the people who are regular readers and contributors here on Social Edge. But in reading Dees' article and Bornstein's book on social entrepreneurship, we believed that the key to being good social entrepreneurs was perseverance, to the detriment of being less aware of some of the warning signs that our idea, a student-run publication on social entrepreneurship for students, had some fatal flaws. Unbeknownst to me at the time, despite the positive feedback our idea had, we only eventually realized that donor preferences were such that there didn't exist a nonprofit/social enterprise capital market interested in funding a student publication on social entrepreneurship; that Stanford lacked an undergraduate journalism program; that more generally, students were unqualified to write on the topic of social entrepreneurship due to a lack of experience in the sector; and more importantly, that being part of a student run publication on social entrepreneurship was something few students would be passionate about from year to year.

I can only imagine what Kjerstin is going through right now, especially because her organization deals directly with refugees; if FORGE goes under, the refugees don't get assistance, which has an extremely tangible and emotional real world impact. Is the current financial crisis she's facing because she has a good idea that donors are unaware about and something she needs to work through? Or is the idea unsupported by the market. It's interesting to note here that even though the idea may be unsupported by the market, it may not be a bad idea. FORGE could be a great idea that donors simply don't want to fund. But if donors are unwilling to support FORGE, then the idea is simply unsupported by the market. This is the single most frustrating thing I find about the field of philanthropy - that good ideas in the sector aren't necessarily rewarded or sought out by donors.

The decision to quit for Kjerstin depends on her beliefs of how she can maximize social impact. Maybe it's time to move on from FORGE, cut losses, and apologize to the people she serves and the people who work with her by explaining why she no longer believes FORGE is the right way to maximize social impact. Or maybe it's business as usual, and FORGE just needs to operate more leanly for a little while. Or maybe in thinking over the theory of change, Kjerstin will reshape FORGE by finding an innovative solution that will make FORGE into something more sustainable.

Personally, I rarely ever believe that nonprofits are ever the solution because they 1) provide few financial incentives for innovation 2) are unable to get a clear answer from their funders a metric for performance and 3) are unable to scale. If FORGE does actually accrue long-term benefits to refugees, is it only as a form of Pareto efficient wealth transfer (charity) where the rich are simply giving their wealth to the poor, or can there be some kind of investment here, where FORGE invests in refugees so that the return on investment over the long-term is some multiple of the initial investment - providing a model of sustainability? My own recent experiences in China and its education system makes me believe that nonprofits are sometimes necessary, but whenever possible, if the social good can be created through a self-sustainable business, that's the best way to go.

Cheers, Tony http://tonyjwang.wordpress.com

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

To argue that the market is the only measure of value is to ignore most of human history, recorded or otherwise.

Tony, this as I read it is how Forge engages communities. Projects endorsed and funded by the donor base, so I think that it would be inaccurate to say that donors don't want to fund these projects, as it seems a case of less donors or donors willing to give lesser amounts.

http://www.forgenow.org/content/collaborative-approach

Like you, I'd advocate a business driven approach for the front end, in this case a business with the primary purpose of funding the projects, as I think is the aim for B Corporations?

With limited funds, one can invest in development of the business plan and advocate for enlightened self-interest by making the case for full cost recovery over a finite period. This is how the Tomsk initiative and microfinance bank was leveraged. With mainstream business now entering the development market, it ought to be possible to make the same case to get a funding commitment equal to the needs of the project, up front.

Hi again:

I can seldom do more than thank you for your insights and your continuing efforts, Jeff. This time I'd like to pick up on your comment:

QUOTE: I'd advocate a business driven approach for the front end, in this case a business with the primary purpose of funding the projects :UNQUOTE

I wrote a book a long time ago about work satisfaction, and said (among other things) that doing a job that funds a "mission in life" can fill the most tiresome work with a sense of purpose. Are you [also, perhaps] suggesting that sort of double effort here?

Yes indeed Charles, the very notion of a business driven approach going back to the origins of P-CED was to use business as a kind of fulcrum to leverage investment, in those days from development aid funding to be deployed as investment capital to leverage microfinance investment from USAID in Russia . The intention also being to seed other social investment business. We saw the IT services business as being ideal. due to high margins and minimal consumables. We'd not expected all businesses to be able to do this or even want to. The objective being to operate within the existing free market system and not replace it.

QUOTE: I just want to say I love the conversations here on Social Edge - they all seem to hit on the key discussions that we ought to have but sometimes don't. :UNQUOTE

Excellent, and thank you.

Hi Tony,

You make a good point - that the very first question an organization/entrepreneur should ask themselves is whether they are fully confident that their venture/idea/strategy is the best one out there addressing the problem that they are adressing. If after some combined soul searching and data mining they can't back that up, its time to get out game. Hopefully, though, this is a question that they asked themselves long before they found themselves in fiscal trouble...

Within FORGE, my team and I have the conviction that we are on to something big with our theory and methods of change, and that we will only improve and refine them over time. We dont believe that FORGE or any other organization is a panacea for the problems in the world, but we darn well believe that our model, strategy, and execution are the best fit for the problem we're working on. We may be delusional, of course, but we wouldn't be here today if we didnt think so!

So for us, the question comes down to whether we physically have the resources to continue. I'll do whatever it takes to make ends meet, be that working multiple jobs, going back to living in a suitcase and running FORGE from Starbucks, whatever. The one thing I can't do is borrow more with the uncertainty of being able to pay it back. FORGE hasn't been shy of borrowing in the past when there is a clear temporary cash flow shortage, but what we face right now is a larger question of economic viability. Getting $100,000 in the bank isn't enough - we need to prove that we can sustainable raise those funds on a year-to-year basis.

Its funny - when I think about the future I honestly can't see quiting as an option. I see all the problems in front of us and I understand that if we can't pull the pieces together we won't have any more funds to send to-the-ground. And yet somehow, I can't imagine a life without FORGE, or a world in which we can't somehow manage to come out stronger...I guess only time will tell.

-Kjerstin

Hi Kjersten,

To be honest, I like the idea behind FORGE a lot and I've been thinking more about the model and whether it is the best fit, and I'm starting to believe your decision to incorporate as a nonprofit does make sense. In the special circumstances surrounding refugee education, it's hard to recoup your investment into their education, even if it ends up financially benefiting the refugees several times the cost of that investment. I'm glad that your team has thought long and hard about your theory of change - there's always the risk that conviction might simply be misplaced delusion - but from what I can tell, it looks like you've assembled a smart and solid team (which mitigates the risk of delusion).

Is there a funder that can vouch for you and say to others, "Hey, I've done the due diligence on FORGE and they're a great organization?" It seems odd to me that there isn't more transparency or analysis on due diligence - something many in the sector have reiterated. If FORGE really is a great grantmaking opportunity, I don't see why all the foundations who do international work aren't CONTACTING YOU (it seems presumptuous for the foundations to let you run around in circles trying to contact all of them). Why not give the foundation who puts up $100K a seat on your board?

Personally, if I had oodles of money and was a philanthropist, I'd love to put a $100K into your organization, get involved as a board member, and listen to what FORGE needs and what it wants to do in the future (while connecting with others from my alma mater). But I work for a social enterprise and don't earn a lot of money. And as much as I'm willing to put something like $500 towards FORGE, I'm afraid that putting $500 in the bucket doesn't do anything without a total investment of $100K and a sustainability plan.

But here's where the long-tail of philanthropy might work. If you come up with a strong sustainability plan and others who have the ability to evaluate that sustainability plan (i.e. credibility) can say that it's a good one, then it should be in theory very easy to get $100K from a foundation. But if not, I'm sure myself and many others would be willing to pledge something like $500, with the following unique condition: everyone's individual pledge is only carried out when a total of $100K has been pledged. (Is there some kind of website or widget that does this?)

It seems only fitting that FORGE is going through this trial process and may eventually become stronger because of it - after all, that's what happens in an actual forge.

Best of luck! -Tony

Hi Charles, Great to see You back in these parts. Over the the last four years, ever since I embarked on this initiative to ship a few boxes to a hurricane devastated Island, there have been numerous occasions and moments, when I have been ready to jack it in;however I am glad that Iam still commited to the vision of delivering educational resources to schools in Grenada,Carriacou and Petit Martinque that will make good use of them. However since I have become a fully registered Scottish company and charity and can no longer fund this venture entiely by myself I am now writing a business plan and attempting to determine whether my initiative can be financially sustainable.Time will tell and until I can answer that question with numbers I have no choice but to stick with it, if only to keep FAITH with so many who have supported my efforts from the sidelines,not least Yourself. I attach some recent puff.Best wishes Aye David Fresh NewsThursday, 14th August 2008

Redundant Dunshelt school furniture destined for Caribbean classrooms

Mr Hanschell (left) is pictured with teams from Fife’s Community Services who helped load the consignment, on 23/07/2008 which it’s hoped will now make its way to Grange Dock to be shipped to the Caribbean.

Previous «Scroll Down

Published Date: 31 July 2008 By Liz Rougvie FURNITURE rescued from the village school in Dunshalt, which controversially closed last summer, is soon to be bound for the Caribbean, where it will be used by youngsters whose lives were devastated by hurricanes.

David Miles-Hanschell, founder of the Surplus Educational Supplies Foundation, visited the Fife Food and Business Centre in Glenrothes last week to help load desks, chairs and other equipment on to a container which is to be shipped to the tiny island of Carriacou in the West Indies.

They will be used by children whose schools were wrecked by Hurricane Ivan, which struck in 2004, and Hurricane Emily the following year.

West Indian born Mr Hanschell, a retired teacher from the Isle of Bute, launched the charity in response to the disaster and has dug deep into his own pocket to buy containers.

Since then, it's caught the imagination of local authorities and businesses all over Scotland, with Fife being one of the first councils to donate surplus school furniture.

The school in Dunshalt, which had just seven pupils, closed its doors last year following a vigorous campaign by parents to keep it open.

The news that its furniture was to be put to good use on the other side of the world brought some comfort to the villagers, who also donated chairs from the village hall.

The furniture was collected in March and has been stored in the Food and Business Centre, along with equipment from other schools in Fife.

The full article contains 253 words and appears in n/a newspaper. Page 1 of 1

Last Updated: 31 July 2008 3:29 PM Source: n/a Location: Fife Now Bookmark:

Dunshalt furniture on its way to Grenada

The school furniture is loaded up for shipment.

Published Date: 27 March 2008 By Liz Rougvie THE tiny village school whose closure last year caused a storm of protest is to be put up for sale as its desks and chairs embark on the first leg of their journey to the other side of the world. The Surplus Education Supplies Foundation and Fife Council have joined forces in a project at the former Dunshalt Primary School that this week earned the thanks of Grenada's High Commissioner.

David Hanschell, founder of the Surplus Educational Supplies Foundation, paid a poignant visit to Dunshalt Primary School last week where he discovered what he described as an 'Aladdin's Cave' of resources.

They are to be shipped to the tiny Caribbean island of Carriacou, off the coast of Grenada, where they will be used by children whose own schools were wrecked by hurricanes.

The school building itself is expected to go on the market within the next few weeks, signalling the end of an era for the village.

Last Thursday, Fife Council staff began supervising a team of people who are completing community service orders in the job of moving furniture from Dunshalt to an industrial unit in Glenrothes.

Senior project officer for community service Archie Melville said it was an opportunity for team members to help a local good cause.

Council estates surveyor Gillian Bobby said the furniture would be stored in the council facility at Glenrothes for a couple of months until Mr Hanschell could organise their shipment overseas.

The High Commissioner for Grenada Joseph Charter rang the Fife Herald to say how much his country appreciated the donation of furniture, which would be well used by the people of Carriacou.

"I wish to express our most sincere thanks and appreciation for all the hard work done by David Hanschell and members of the community on behalf of the children and people of Grenada," he said.

Last year, angry parents of Dunshalt Primary School's seven pupils spearheaded a campaign against its closure.

But Mr Hanschell hopes that they will take comfort in the fact that some good has come out of the situation.

He said: "I felt quite moved when I visited the little school, knowing how hard local people had fought to save it.

"But I would like to assure them that all the desks, chairs and other equipment will be very much appreciated by the children in Grenada, who were left with nothing after Hurricanes Ivan and Emily hit the island."

The full article contains 411 words and appears in n/a newspaper. Page 1 of 1

Last Updated: 27 March 2008 3:06 PM

Friday, 16th May 2008

From Bute by banana boat

« Previous « Previous Next » Next » View Gallery Published Date: 06 March 2008 By Mike Blair Reporter ROTHESAY'S old Academy Primary building may have closed its doors to pupils last year but a part of its schooling heritage looks set to live on - breathing new life into hurricane-ravaged schools in warmer climes. Like the Mary Celeste, the old building at the top of Westland Road has lain unused and abandoned - but full of furniture and equipment - since the present day Academy pupils moved into their spanking new Townhead premises last summer.

But now, s

ome eight months after the school was vacated, Bute's own Good Samaritan has arrived on the scene - and emptied the building of many of those items to send on his latest mercy mission to the Caribbean.

David Hanschell has been sending surplus educational materials from schools all over Scotland to the hurricane-ravaged island of Grenada for two years now - and after some months of negotiation, last week he was finally ready to make use of the huge store of surplus items right on his doorstep.

Shocked by the amount of equipment which was just going to be thrown out after the academy's move, David contacted The Buteman and we went along with him last October to our old alma mater where we started school 60 years ago.

It was as if the staff and pupils had left at 4pm one afternoon and fully intended to come back the following morning.

As well as desks, chairs, black and whiteboards, we saw books, jotters and other types of classroom equipment lying abandoned. The domestic science department still had a number of cookers and kitchens which looked to be in perfect working order.

The staff room even had a brand new electric kettle along with cutlery and crockery, and we found a full set of Arthur Mee's Children's Encyclopedias, which would not have looked out of place on TV's Antiques Roadshow - the list went on and on.

We went back up to the school on Thursday and met up with David as he welcomed an enormous articulated lorry driven by George Flatters of Nottingham and owned by Shanks Central Fleet.

David told us: "George will unload the container, which has been loaned by John G. Russell at Mossend and I am currently in negotiations to have people load it with as much furniture, books and other equipment as we can.

George said: "I am based in Grantham but have often been to Bute and I really enjoyed driving off the new linspan without such an awkward right turn."

David continued: "When loaded the container will go to Freightliner Ltd's container base before going on to Maersk at Southampton's Western Docks and that is where the banana boat aspect comes into play. It will then be offloaded on to a Geest ship which is returning to the Caribbean to pick up another cargo of bananas for Britain.

"Its final destination is to the Grenada Boys Government School and St George's Anglican Junior School on the island of Grenada."

David would like to thank John Mackirdy, who has offered to take the load off the island on his behalf.

Meanwhile the 1938-built art deco former Rothesay Academy Primary building, which was used by the Academy's Secondary department from 1954 to 2007, is likely to be demolished, with planning permission already granted to build houses on the site.

The full article contains 556 words and appears in n/a newspaper. Page 1 of 1

Last Updated: 06 March 2008 2:02 PM Source: n/a Location: Isle of Bute

Good to see you on the Edge again too, David, and as always I am impressed by what you have managed to pull off on your own.

You write:

QUOTE: I am now writing a business plan and attempting to determine whether my initiative can be financially sustainable. Time will tell and until I can answer that question with numbers I have no choice but to stick with it, if only to keep FAITH with so many who have supported my efforts from the sidelines :ENDQUOTE

I hope the mixture of continuing publicity and a decent business plan will work for you, and I also appreciate your comment on keeping faith with others.

To the extent that you're a one-man shop, of course, there are options open to you that may not be open to others.

Wishing you every good fortune.

When the money runs out.

But, are you talking about when a person should quit or an organization? I've thought for awhile, and I've told my board so, that they might be better served by a director with a different skill set than mine. I've reached my level of incompetence and while I am capable of becoming more competent in that which needs to be done to weather this, I'm not so sure I want to. So for the organization it's when the money runs out. For the person it's when you look in the mirror and realize that though you may love the organization maybe you're not the best thing for it.

The trick for the board is knowing the difference between the two and acting to address the circumstances accordingly.

That's a really good point: when a person should quit and when an organization should are two completely different things.

However, I wonder if an organization should quit before the money runs out. What if money is being used inefficiently and there's a better organization that should use that money? Why should an organization look our for it's own self-interest? This is something I've wondered in the for-profit market (GM and others lobbying the government for continuing their own interests and existence against the public interest) and I don't see why a nonprofit that is inefficient should continue to be inefficient just because it has a steady revenue stream.

"What if money is being used inefficiently and there's a better organization that should use that money?"

Perhaps in the business world you can redirect money elsewhere. In the nonprofit world, even unrestricted gifts are restricted insofar as they were given to Organization A not Organization B. I'm pretty sure that funds cannot be simply passed on without giving donors the option of taking their money back. How you would actually plan for shutting down and making the most of remaining resources would depend on the organization I think, it's mission, operations, and constituencies.

"I don't see why a nonprofit that is inefficient should continue to be inefficient just because it has a steady revenue stream."

That's a different question than I thought was being posed here, which is "What to do in the face if the economic crisis if your funding dries up?"

Thanks for your several fine posts here, Chris

I particularly appreciated your quote from Shakespeare and comment:

QUOTE: To argue that the market is the only measure of value is to ignore most of human history, recorded or otherwise :UNQUOTE

That's something we should all be mindful of. But it's your question:

QUOTE: are you talking about when a person should quit, or an organization? :UNQUOTE

which Tony also picked up on that I would like us to get into further. We're back at the discussion of the fact that the founder / enthusiast often isn't the right person to be the continuer / maintainer of a project

which come very close to Weber's distinction between "charisma" and "routinization" in religion, I think.

I sometimes think that every venture really requires two founders

heart and mind, a dreamer and a pragmatist. Sometimes they fit in one body, but often two are required.

The term "social entrepreneur" seems to suggest that there would be one skillset that covers both aspects

but I'm not entirely convinced.

Hi Charles, nice to see you. It's been awhile since I've been doing anything much online. The transition from founder to maintainer/expander is a hard one. I'm on the latter end of that. Founders have aura about them that inspires donors (that is, individual donors, family foundations and so on; donor agencies and major foundations could care less). Often, especially when it comes to the cultural work inherent to social change, they don't really know what they're doing. Part of founder's syndrome is paternalism. But, no matter how passionate a person like me can be about what we do, just isn't the same. In fact, I'm too passionate. I can get so wrapped up in telling people about the beauty of what we actually do that I forget to ask for money! I mean this literally. Once I was presenting to a pretty wealthy Rotary club and I got so caught up in the Q&A about programs I forgot to make the pitch or even get people to sign up for the newsletter! A real salesperson would never blow an opportunity like that. But I do know what I'm doing when it comes to program work and we're in a much better state on that side of things. But the funding conundrum remains. So I represent an incomplete transition I guess.

But this actually gets to something that concerns me in all of this. Move away from a founder can lead to a loss of vision. Pragmatism may get you money, but it may compromise that value and true effectiveness of your organization's work. I had a very telling conversation with a director of a large organization that works in Nepal. When I described what we do he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "we used to do the kind of comprehensive work social change that you do, but ever since we started taking money from AID and the rest we have to do whatever is the donors want to pay for." And he implied that he felt the organization was monetarily richer but programatically poorer for it.

This is why I have such a jaundiced eye toward the grow or die imperative of market based development work. All development work is ultimately market based as there is no escaping capitalism (at least in our lifetimes :) ) but it is particularly pronounced in all this "entrepreneur" business (which I guess I shouldn't say, given where I'm writing). The danger lies in glossing over cultural difference for the expediency of simple, and ultimately monetary, metrics. The peril of doing so is at best not doing much to truly change dire situations and only providing palliatives. At worst it contributes to even greater exacerbation of the problems or creation of new ones. Throwing high input agricultural tech at communities for example and contributing to land concentration, dispossession and immiseration for many, exacerbating rather than diminishing food insufficiency in impoverished rural communities, while supplying cheap broccoli for New Yorkers in February.

I'd like it if we could get money flowing that doesn't submit wholly to grow or die, or to the tyranny of "innovation" but reserves some room for the hard social work of specifically social change; the example I've given in several posts here in the edge (and in other forums you've read) is with regard to women's "empowerment." About a year and a half ago I was in a village where we were hoping to start a new project cycle so we had convened a large community meeting (there were probably a couple hundred people there). So we introduced our programs, one of which is Women's Empowerment, along with all the projects that fall under the programs. During Q&A a fellow stood up and asked "You say you'll do women's empowerment; do you really mean that or is it just a slogan?" It was brilliant. And there were many more questions in that vein. What it got at, in my view, is that people in poor communities know too well the sloganeering of market driven development and are justifiably cynical about efforts that do a few literacy classes, maybe do some "microcredit" and call that empowerment. "Really meaning it" requires treating it not as a technical or financial problem but as a social problem deeply embedded in the politics of culture. Really changing that requires close, personal essentially immeasurable work.

Another anecdote. Just recently we had a Nepali government mandated evaluation done. The evaluation team (appointed by the government, paid by us) met with our management team in Kathmandu and got a thorough introduction to the programs. But when they came back from doing the data collection in the community the team leader said to us "it is so much more than you told us." No amount of metrics can convey what it means to meet a woman who shows you with pride her store that she's established with a loan from her group savings and loan fund but also tells you about how now no family in the community is ever alone during a health crisis but they all fend for each other, how now when the community needs something (new water tap, repairs to a bridge) they organize to raise money, pressure the government of provide funds, organize work parties, etc. It's all of that together, not the fact of each of them alone, that really tells you what happened there, about the social shift that took place both in how they (women) are treated in general but also in how they think about themselves, and especially the future of their daughters.

Maybe this isn't the appropriate place for this particular rant; I just hope that the social sector comes to its collective senses soon and gets back to basics.

Chris,

This is something our own founder recently expressed a desire to do, perhaps because of what you say above about "grow or die" capitalism.

Business driven philanthropy gets interpreted in many ways. In the UK, the government refers to social enterprise, social firms and a third economic sector, for instance with a perception that social enterprise derived from the cooperative movement.

In the USA, it's patient capital, conscious capitalism, creative capitalism, philantrocapitalism and now beneficial corporations, with a predominant flavour of laissez faire capitalism being used to fund philanthropic causes.

His own perception was of the power of community or people-centered business, that in which all the community are stakeholders, with those employed earning a living wage appropriate to local economic conditions. In this it would distinguish itself for example from major corporations which are tardy in paying suppliers, do harm to communities thy may displace or contaminate and offer a counterpoint in a CSR activity, which may not be equal to the harm caused.

There are some forms of microcredit doing harm, where it's been observed in our research to be a facilitator for local money laundering activity, right under the noses of USAID. There are unfortunate few efforts that take a holistic view of a community in a coordinated development approach, too often we have microcredit alone proposed as "the" solution.

We observe the farcical, in business which create manufacturing of branded goods in developing world locations, with the branding used to protect their overpriced products in the home market, while microcredit is provided for others in the developing world, to trade in the "conterfeit".

We don't have to throw away capitalism, it has the greatest potential for development but we do have to come to terms that all this sophistry, in the end, is crumbs from the table. Capitalism can work for the good of all, but democracy dictates that laws applied to penalise the free flow of goods and services in the favour of major corporations are not good laws.

Jeff

The topic came in while I sincerely feel I achieved the purpose of establishing the organization - Life-Health Reinforcement Group in 1999.

Then I started sharing this idea I am in a mood to quit.

Individuals who are closely observing our growth and issues we are in, felt it's not the time and they went a step further saying U dont even utter the word quit.

The single reason is they say, the game had just begun.

While in our journey we could define our work and identify sources of suport (which evolved in a very natural way),what I missed to judge in my journey of building an organization of repute with its own style of functioning(withholding all the values of not for profit), one area I missed to forsee is its growth and need for physical infrastructure.

This pushed me to a corner where I had to seek financial support from various sources.

Thus one single mistake of not forseeing the growth and being pushed to be in tough situations, made me reconsider the decision of LUXURY OF QUITTING.

So, waiting.............................

Just the title of your post is enough to set me off on a whole other line of thought, Prakash.

It's a very thought-provoking way of seeing things.

*

You talk about "one area I missed to forsee", and I think that fits with Tony's comment that began with the words " we only eventually realized" and with some of Kjerstin's points, too.

It is only too easy to have a plan, and to ensure that half a dozen issues are covered, and to be tripped up by one or two items that one hadn't considered, I had an artist friend who made a very beautiful and ingenious calendar, and had it printed up with his life savings, hoping it would propel him to wider fame and fortune. The calendar was brilliant, but it didn’t fit the boxes in which publishers ship to bookstores… so his concept was dead on arrival.

How we can learn to take care of problems that are in the "don't even know that we don't know about them" category, I don't know. But as the Chinese sage says, Perseverance furthers. We learn from our mistakes and move on. And for that we need resolute courage

and knowing that what we are doing is needed can help ensure that we have that.

Warm regards as ever...

Prakash's comment really struck me because I think it hits on the really uncomfortable/emotional aspects of the decision to ultimately pull out/shut down/cut programs: YOU have the luxury of moving on with your life and chances are you'll end up just fine, if not healthier. The people you serve have no such option. Choices and options are, ultimately, luxuries.

I think its important to remind ourselves just how luxurious it is to be a social entrepreneur in the first place...

It's so true - being a social enterpreneur is a luxury and it is something that we should not take too much pride in when there are others who don't have that opportunity.

But not quitting may also be a luxury. You have to ask yourself whether quitting may be the necessary means to achieving the long-term social impact you seek. What if you came back with an even better idea that couldn't operate within the organizational structure of FORGE, spent time that you now have to get all the right players together, and found a long-term sustainable solution that could scale?

There is no easy answer. But hopefully by focusing on a clear single objective, finding the answer might be easier.

After reading Tony's,Kjerstin and Sir, I felt I need to add this conversation with the discussion we had in the forum -"Small is Beautiful".

While being samll we have the advantage of closely monitioring and making necessary changes to achieve the Goal, in the process we tend to miss the opportunity to judge ourselves.

So, I see when any growing organization small or big we need to have friends who are not directly linked with the organization to caution us,support us and encourage us.

What helped me in reorganizing and move forwards is I organized to face situations and I used floor, here I should admit SOCIAL EDGE forums were encouraging and supportive for me to spell out what I was going through and word of solace from friends from Socialedge really helped me.

So, here I like to express that its not choice of quitting or not quitting but ability to answer ourselves.

Yesterday I was qouting in our OPEN HOUSE meeting that >Freedom can be used or misused, used you would scale up and you will earn >PEACE and misused you will earn, THE gift >GUILT.

So choice is ours, being social enterpreneur is all about understanding this word >FREEDOM

I've noticed a good way to spread the risk is to simultaneously have ca 3 projects going on (that's pretty much the max that one entrepreneur can handle without losing focus). This way you can decide to put one of them to standstill without risking the whole enterprise. However, it seems that if you leave one of your projects to wait (without really quitting it), you might start seeing new opportunities after a while to revitalize it.

When it comes to the whole enterprise, one shouldn't worry too much. Just make sure the work is fun and people in your organization develop all the time. This way, if the push comes to shove your people (including you as an ex-entrepreneur) can better find new opportunities to put your talent and networks in better use.

"People who succeed in the face of seemingly impossible conditions are people who simply don't know how to quit." Charles, " you can be a dreamer and a doer, if you remove one word from your vocabulary - impossible." It is possible for one person to have the two skill sets but I think it was Leonardo da Vinci who said it best when contemplating quitting: "supreme misfortune will come when theory outstrips performance."

I dont know when i begun? Because i was working in a Bank in india, i have started my non-profit New Life www.newlifemfi.org I have employed some full-timers to run my microfinance programe. We had conceieved a ideal model of community owned federative structure to manage the microfinance activities of poor.This poor women managed federative structures have been unethically allured by our organisation's funders FWWB (www.fwwb.org) and this lead to our loss of control. To protect the interest of our organisation i had to quit my Bank Job and plunged fulltime in the non-profit which i never thought of doing. With ongoing legal battles i dont know i can quit immediately as the finacial losses caused by the fiduciary relationship of our funders and few of the peoples representatives of the federations we had promoted.

CHARLY peterrexcharly@gmail.com 914312770199

Many of the comments made so far resonate with me because I've been the driving force in Cabrini Connections for more than 30 years, and in the Tutor/Mentor Connection for the past 16 years.

The perserverance of the innovator who sees a solution that others don't see has been documented in many articles. However, not all innovators succeed in gaining support, no matter how good the idea, or how hard, or long, they try.

I agree with the "I don't know how to quit" comments because so many people have been connected, and stay connected, to my organization and each other, because of my every day actions.

I share the frustration of many of you because I hear many people make pledges and speeches about helping the poor and the disadvantaged, yet few will make the 20 year continuous commitment to help a first grade boy living in a high poverty neighborhood be starting a job/career in his early 20s.

Most other problems we talk about on Social Edge are just as complex, and will require just as long, or longer, to solve, in even small ways.

I spoke to a group of ministers once. They were talking about starting tutor/mentor programs at their churches. I said, "I don't expect business people to keep their promises, however, you have a higher level of accountability. If you start a program and say to a child you're going to help them grow up, you need to have a business plan, and commitment, to keep that promise for the next 20 years or so."

This is our challenge. I heard a speaker in Chicago yesterday say "Starting something is easy. Sustaining it and making it work is the hard part."

I did not choose the work I'm doing. I became a volunteer in 1973 and through a succession of events, became a leader. Over time I grew in my knowledge and my passion, and have learned to try to recruit others to also be leaders.

After telling so many people, for so many years, that they can't quit on these kids, I don't know how I can either.

However, I'm getting older, so I've been putting as much of my knowledge as I can on the Internet, so that even if the Directors of my own organization cannot sustain this if something happens to me, others can pick up the idea and sustain it in many different places.

In the end, it's not about me. It's about the work we are trying to accomplish. If we create other owners, maybe we solve some of the problems we're discussing right now.

Hi Jo,

I really love the quotes you posted, they are so inspiring. I remember finding a quote somewhere saying "Sometimes the winner is just the person who knows how to wait 5 minutes longer". The words may not be exactly like this but believe the content is true. It is as simply as "Never give up"

It's funny when I talk about starting two for-profits and one nonprofit in the 1980s, and people get the impression that my entrepreneurship experience was uniformly upward and positive. But, I started seven ventures during the 1980s. The key thing is knowing when to quit, and my answer is early.

It's much easier to quit early in the process, before lots of money and reputation is at stake. Once a venture has caught on, you are deep in it personally. Hard to extract yourself!

This seems to fly in the face of the pigheaded persistence that is usually a characteristic of successful entrepreneurs. But, if it really isn't working after your best crack at it, it's time to move on.

We (Benetech) had to put a very exciting project on hold last year, when we had already committed real philanthropic resources to it. It wasn't easy, but we bit the bullet. Our biggest funder, Lemelson, allowed us to publish a essay on the lessons we learned from our humanitarian landmine detector project.

I'm aware that this is not directly addressing the issue at hand: great work with funding on the decline. Like Kjerstin, I'd probably keep plugging away, believing that somehow there will be a path forward!

Jim, I'd read about the landmine detector project and your mention of having to put it on hold brought to mind our own experience, with an economic development proposal for the Crimean Tatars. In this case the reason being that of interference. Our founder relates it here, describing swords to ploughshares efforts and the insufficiency of traditional capitalism. This region is now the focus of world attention as a potential zone of conflict, and we all know what happened to capitalism last month.

http://www.iccrimea.org/scholarly/economicdev.html

This is the point at which I joined in and yes, we failed, in the context of not being heard in making a stand about graft in development.

I know you've attended Davos in the past. This year was particularly significant for us, in that 2 announcements were particularly relevant to what we'd been doing. The first being the USAID announcement of the East Europe Foundation, to support the development of sustainable community business (aka social enterprise) in Ukraine and the concept of Creative Capitalism, business and government working together with the power of information technology to address major world inequity. Both of these ideas, under different names, had been delivered in a strategy paper to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Oct 2006.

That might be considered success, in some way. On the other side of the coin A UK national campaign tuned into part of it and informed us of this part being chosen as a leading example in their October announcements. 20% of our budget that month went on a fax machine to send them a signed approval form. It's now Novemenber, there hasn't been a word about the announcements.

This might be a golden opportunity to publicise that which has since been achieved, encourage our corporate customers to pay invoices perhaps. We just wait as funds dwindle until the point that it costs more to run than can be derived from it. This is our final point of failure, on insolvency.

Jeff

Hello again, Jim;

I just wanted to thank you for your warmly optimistic yet coolly practical post

and for reminding us that it's possible (and may indeed be advisable) to quit a project without quitting oneself.

That's an important distinction here, I think.

I completely agree with you, Jim. I think that the best time to quit is early on. I think it is always very difficult to quit, however, and it is so much easier said than done. I think that in society there is this stigma about failure. We, as a society, are brainwashed into thinking that if you quit… you are a failure. You are always afraid to tell someone that you quit because then it means that you didn’t work as hard or that you weren’t passionate about the project to keep it breathing. The truth is, however, that we need to change all this. We need to treat failures as learning opportunities. We need to celebrate the times that we failed because then we are celebrating in the idea of taking risk, putting yourself out there, being vulnerable, being open and ready to try something new…. I think this is also very cultural as well. I know that I am from the Middle East. Over there, there is a huge stigma around the idea of quitting and failing…. Even more so than here in the United States. Over there, you are not only failing or quitting as an individual, but if you fail…. Your family name also fails. I remember being in Jordan and hearing of a family whose son had opened up a store and it failed…. I remember everyone talking about his family and how ashamed they were. It just makes me really sad that we cannot celebrate the fact that he took a risk no one else in his family was willing to make. So I guess, what I am trying to say is that it is good to quit if things are not going well…. But it is much easier said than done.

If a non-profit, then your company should follow the balanced scorecard measurement tool to determine if the social mission is being satisfied. If for-profit, the financial viability and scorecard should be weighed to determine what decision should ultimately be made. This is a tough decision to make due to the lack of objectivity most entrepreneurs have regarding their start-ups.

I prefer failure to quitting. Quitting to me conotates that someone or some group decided that the social impact/or approach was too difficult, inherent with too many difficulties, or had too many unknowns that presented too many obstacles, and decided to bag it. If the social or environmental mission is really one worth pursuing, than it can be accomplished, even if it needs to morph into something different. There's my thoughts on startups. Achieve your goal, no matter how long, hard, arduous, or painstaking it may be.

With respect to an existing social enterprise, I feel that we as social entrepreneurs really do have a responsibility to carry out the operations of that venture, whatever it may be, or make steps to plan the exit strategy. If there is positive impact, and the mission can continued to be carried out either by the initial group, or a replacement group of social entrepreneurs, than so be it. My thougts are plan for the start up, growth, and exit of any business/social venture.

Failure is o.k. It's what happens through our learning experiences.