The Skoll Foundation, via its Social Edge website, just released a Social Entrepreneur Search Widget to help funders, bloggers, supporters, and peers find and connect with social entrepreneurs who have been vetted by leading awards programs including Skoll, Civic Ventures, Draper Richards, PopTech, and the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship. The widget is slick, easy to use, and will no doubt be a boon to all types of individuals and organizations looking to follow the smart money.
The thing is, I’m not sure this widget and what it represents are really good for the social change sector. It might be good for the sector on a superficial level, but it also promotes the damaging mythology of The Social Entrepreneur. The mythology of The Social Entrepreneur is the idea that there are these few, special people who take on an almost super-human role in creating incredibly innovative and successful organizations that are on their way to solving massive social problems. The Social Entrepreneur’s own personal brand and story become inextricably linked with the marketing and achievements of the organization he or she started.
Kjerstin Erickson inspired a lively discussion on this very topic in a post on Social Edge. To quote her:
The mythology of The Social Entrepreneur revolves the whole story around the individual. Through a shrewd slight-of-hand, our attention is turned away from the collective movement and toward an individual onto whom a Hero’s Journey is imposed. The drama of such a tale is high, but at what cost? Kings and Queens are made, and many a speaking career launched…but what is sacrificed? What collective narrative, what real representation of holistic social change, what inclusive vision for proudly joining hands as small cogs in a big wheel?
The emphasis on the individual at the expense of the collective narrative is certainly one danger of focusing so strongly on social entrepreneurs rather than social entrepreneurship. David Henderson touched on another danger on this site yesterday, when he warned of the unconscious shift in our loyalties that can occur as we pour our time and resources into a social change organization and find our ambition increasingly driven by the success of a particular organization or approach. ”Where once the poor themselves were paramount in our ambitions, our ambitions instead become about the success of our solutions.”
The symbiotic relationship between the social entrepreneur and the organization she founded can also be damaging to the long-term health of the organization. It is commonly recognized within the for-profit sector that although entrepreneurs make terrific leaders early on, as a company grows and matures, it eventually reaches a point where a different skill-set is required of its leaders to get it over a hump and scale it to the next level. When a company reaches this point, assuming it has shrewd investors or a diligent board, the entrepreneur steps aside (though not always of their own volition) and allows new leadership to build off the successful business model the entrepreneur developed. In the nonprofit sector, it is much harder for the founder to step aside from the day-to-day operation of their organization because so often their personal story and involvement are an integral to the organization’s fundraising capabilities. The opportunity costs of this intertwining between the entrepreneur and the venture are great: to the organization which has trouble bringing in the new leader it needs; to the individual who may no longer be achieving her full potential in the role that is now required of her; and to society, which is denied having that entrepreneur redeploy her energy to solve a new challenge.
Like Kjerstin and David, I have the utmost respect for social entrepreneurs and the profound influence many of them have in improving our world. In fact, Kjerstin was one of the individuals I recently commended for taking a Full Contact approach to philanthropy. I do not mean to diminish in any way the accomplishments of entrepreneurs (social or otherwise) or imply that they do not play a tremendously important role in bettering the world. Let’s just be conscious of the costs of promoting the mythology of The Social Entrepreneur and remember to emphasize the metrics and outcomes that capture their organizations’ true impact so that our human and financial resources can be deployed to the places where they can do the most good.
(Photo by yosoyjulito)
Dan Elitzer is a social enterprise consultant, currently working in Washington, DC. Dan has developed social enterprise and social franchise strategies for dozens of leading domestic nonprofit organizations, is a 
Yes, non-profit or #socent should be run as for-profit.
I don't believe that is the point Dan is making in this piece. As to whether non-profits should be run as for-profits or not I think is neither here nor there. What matters is social impact, how organization's are run and how they generate revenue are peripheral tactics, not ends. Businesses are good at some things, and awful at others. Non-profits and for-profits have a lot to learn from each other, but what matters most is what we have to learn about effective poverty interventions.
I don't think Dan was really talking about that. I think the point comparing the individual to the organization is applicable for entrepreneurship in general: for-profit and non-profit. Creating an organization that lasts through multiple leadership transitions should be the goal of all organizations.
I think, Dan, that your post illustrates a huge difference between social and non-social businesses. Social businesses seem to rely heavily on their start-up entrepreneur as the carrier of the brand: the story of the social entrepreneur and their social business are often one and the same. But, I think a great brand that illustrates the other side of the spectrum, though, is Wendy Kopp and Teach For America. People know TFA first, and Wendy Kopp second.
Keep on posting.
Neil, you and David are right. I'm certainly not advocating that nonprofits and social enterprises should be run as for-profit ventures. I disagree though that lasting through multiple leadership transitions should be the goal of all organizations. Being able to survive and thrive through multiple leadership transitions is a mark of robust organizational development, but the ultimate goal of an organization should be to have the maximum possible impact on its mission. Yes, building a strong organization that is not over-reliant on its founder is an important goal for entrepreneurs to keep in mind, but it is critical that this not be seen as an end in and of itself. I'm sure you agree, but I wanted to spell that out explicitly.
You're right, Teach for America is an excellent example of a brand that has benefited greatly from its founder and her story, but has matured to the point that it is no longer dependent on her to survive. I think this is in large part due to the size it has reached – TFA had revenue of more than $90 million in 2007. Even for the people we would deem "successful" social entrepreneurs, I suspect the vast majority of their organizations don't get much above the $1-5 million mark, a level which is significant but not so high that a great personal story can't go a long way towards meeting their ongoing fundraising needs. Being cash-strapped, as everybody in the sector is, it is very hard to dedicate the resources necessary to build a funding infrastructure that is not reliant on the founder and her story. Unless the organization reaches the size where it can invest in creating that infrastructure, it is very hard for founders whose personal brands are closely tied to the organization's success to transition without serious detriment to the organization's ability to continue to operate effectively.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by delitzer: Please, Stop Talking About The Social Entrepreneur http://bit.ly/btonFe...
This post definitely Delitzed me. Some good thoughts about staying focused on what matters.
Dan,
This post made me think. I've always favored using the term "social enterprise," in place of "social entrepreneurship," when talking about what interests me or what industry I'd like to have a career in for the simple fact that I'm not sure yet if I'm the "entrepreneur" type. You're on point when you talk about the individual taking precedent over the collective in terms of who gets the "glory," and the troubling trend it could create. Good stuff, buddy.
Thanks, Mo. I'm with you whole-heartedly on wanting to be involved with social enterprise, but not being sure about being an "entrepreneur." I think this prevalence of this sentiment was what influenced Ashoka to adopt its "everyone a changemaker" vision, despite a core belief in the power of the rare individuals who are true entrepreneurs, social or otherwise. Having systems to identify and support true hard-core entrepreneurs is important, but we need to find a way to support their ventures without making it too much about their individual story and attributes.
Excellent points, Dan. I admit to having been swept up by the mythology of the social entrepreneur myself, assigning to it only the most positive connotation without thinking critically about the downside. Perhaps that is because I had the privilege many years ago to work with someone who had a keen ability to "think socially and act entrepreneurially," long before the term entered the social ector's lexicon. In hindsight I think that experience gave me license to think very differently about how to approach social problems. In short, to think and act like an entrepreneur without apology, believing my intentions — and those of my colleague — were only good. Going forward I imagine I'll be more mindful of how I use the term — and its implications. No doubt that's a good thing.
This really hit home for me. When I was a lowly intern many years ago at Ashoka: Innovators for the Public, I was always surprised by the strong emphasis they put on these "special individuals" and how this influenced the individuals working there to create their own I am a "special incredible snowflake" narrative. I appreciate the focus on Everyone a Changemaker and hope that this continues to spread throughout the world of social enterprise and international development.
Yes: couldn't agree more. This is also, partly, a US phenomenon. In Europe / UK, social entrepreneurship is less talked about in terms of heroic individuals creating systemic social change, but about how they create teams, build networks and lead movements that create sustainable social change. And change their world, and the world around them, not necessarily the whole world.
Further to the point above, it should be about scaling social impact, not scaling particular organisations / individual's profiles. We should scale the numbers of local social entrepreneurs, not insist that everyone has to be a Kopp or a Yunus: few can, and relevant role models are as important as inspirational ones.
For more, check out The myth and truth of the heroic individual
http://socialentrepreneurs.typepad.com/the_school...
and
The Long Tail of Social Entrepreneurship
http://socialentrepreneurs.typepad.com/the_school...
Definitely agree with your point of cultivating local entrepreneurs rather than focus all our attention on so-called rockstars. To that point, how do you suggest we better identify and cultivate local innovators addressing community needs?
I think Nathalie (see below) has probably answered this for me, but for us it's about outreach, about utilising relevant role models (rather than completely extraordinary ones), about removing barriers to entry (we require no paper qualifications, we have a childcare / access budget), about tying it to action rather than qualifications, and about building trusted relationships and networks. It's what our programme has been founded on from the start, and the reason why the comment above ("Where once the poor themselves were paramount in our ambitions, our ambitions instead become about the success of our solutions.”) doesn't really resonate. For us, the "poor" or those traditionally viewed as "beneficiaries", are potential leaders…potential social entrepreneurs themselves; who understand the problem, have passion and purpose to solve it, who have built-in credibility and legitimacy, and who will stay the course.
As Nathalie says much more eloquently than me, it's about social entrepreneurship being bottom-up, not just top down. And about not reinforcing inequalities and divides in the well-meaning attempt of trying to address them.
oddly enough, the product kjerstein is now selling,and that i have bought (i guess this makes this a product endorsement wow.) allows founder transition, which is hard at non profits and easy at for profits. if she gets the money she can move back to a startup role, rather than running an organization that has grown beyond her.
life investment is a mystery; the risk and reward of someone's life is what you are buying. so it is defying rational analysis, as it should to preserve its value as a shared mystery.
separate the hero and the enterprise. invest in each in an appropriate way. decoupling makes the myth not a sector crippling one, perhaps. that's another part of my bet.
As a past student of the School for Social Entrepreneurs (SSE), one of the things that I benefited from most during my time there was being surrounded by entrepreneurial people who had experienced the problems they were trying to solve. Most students in my year (2005) were from the communities they were working with, which often made them especially qualified to find solutions to problems and build relationships, usually on a small but fit-for-purpose scale.
Although I appreciate that not being “from the community” does not preclude someone from carrying out important work, and that this is only one aspect of social entrepreneurship, it is nevertheless a hugely important one and one that the founder of the SSE, the late Michael Young, recognised. It’s an aspect that seems to be undervalued in the cacophony surrounding the rise of the “Social Entrepreneur” that Dan talks about.
Over the past 5 years, at gatherings and conferences etc., I have witnessed a new breed of professional “Social Entrepreneur” who is usually well-educated, well-spoken and can put together a powerful proposal and eloquently pitch for money. It is this group that, more often than not, benefits from funding and networking opportunities which means that much of the available money continues to move in the same established circles. I somewhat uncomfortably include myself in this group although, of course, I believe in the work I do and recognise the far greater achievements of many others.
To reiterate, I agree with Dan that there are lots of people doing excellent work, and I don’t doubt that Skoll’s widget will point cash and awareness in positive directions, but I think we face a bigger and arguably more important challenge identifying and supporting talented people on the ground from non-traditional backgrounds who often – although not always – hold the key to the most practical solutions, even though they may not be well-versed in the somewhat niche language of funding applications and rhetoric. I wonder if neglect of these individuals might also be included in the “costs of promoting the mythology of the Social Entrepreneur”?
Thanks for adding an excellent post building on Kjerstin's thoughts from a while ago. As a teacher, I think this emphasis on heroes could create a chilling effect on new entrants, which should concern those who want to see a healthy and growing social enterprise sector. As Edison (and Drucker) have pointed out, much of entrepreneurship is just hard work. Plodding and perseverence. Just not the stuff of comic books or Money magazine for a culture that wants icons, not entrepreneurs.
"The Hero Factor is based on an anecdotal methodology. Look for success and work backward. Not so useful for working forward. Just go find those "one in a million" changemakers and help them out. The not so subtle message to those interested in this work? Don't bother if you aren't a hero. Go get a job at a bank instead. But what if it is the work that makes the person special, rather than the person that makes the work special?" http://www.nextbillion.net/blog/2008/06/04/guest-... __
This is an excellent post and one all leaders and boards of social enterprises should take note. In all honesty, I struggle with my ego to be “the guy ” who launched Citizen Effect” and the realization that the reason I started Citizen Effect was to get as many people involved in philanthropy as possible. The time for me to go is when my desire to tell my story detracts from why we started Citizen Effect in the first place – to allow anyone to be a Citizen Philanthropist and impact as many lives as possible. I hope that day wasn’t yesterday…
Dan
http://www.CitizenEffect.org
[...] Nathalie McDermott, Director of On Road Media, a social media training social enterprise, left an insightful comment on my post about the danger of promoting the mythology of the social entrepreneur. Over the past 5 [...]
Hi,
Do you guys watch movies in theater or on internet? I use to rent DVD movies from Netflix.com. Recently I discovered that we can watch all new movies on internet on day, they are released. So why should I spend money on renting movies??? So, can you guys please tell me where I can watch latest movie Freakonomics? 2010 for free?? I have searched Youtube.com, Dailymotion.com, Megavideo.com but, Could not find a good working link. If you know any working link please share it with me.
Thanks
[...] social retailer, theory At some point this year, there was quite a fuss about the term ‘social entrepreneur‘ — even there. According to Social Edge some successful SocEnt develop a Hero’s [...]
Definitely agree with your point of cultivating local entrepreneurs rather than focus all our attention on so-called rockstars. To that point, how do you suggest we better identify and cultivate local innovators addressing community needs?