A few days ago a friend of mine, Sonny Garg, asked me “is this movement (social entrepreneurship) really any bigger or different than any other social justice movement we have seen? And if so, why?”. After giving it more thought, my answer in short, was “yes”. Below are some of the ideas that came out of our dialogue and we would be very interested in your thoughts and reflections.
Any Larger?
The first argument for this movement being larger is the concept of “extended community”. Sonny said “Perhaps what we are seeing is not so much an increase in a commitment to social change but rather a broadening amongst young people (and society generally) of their definition of community, hence expanding the pie”. From my perspective, this is happening from three main reasons.
The first is the rise of social media. Just last week I was at the Women in the World conference and met an incredible entrepreneur from Uganda who I had been following on twitter. While I had never met her before when we “met” at the conference it was as if she and I were old friends. Even before we met in person, we felt connected, a part of the same community. Facebook, twitter, social networking sites, Kiva, they all can have the same impact.
The second is the increase in international travel and study abroad programs (like Global Citizen Year, School for International Training, Atlas Corps) which allows people to see social inequality face to face rather than on an infomercial. Living abroad changes people lives, redefines stereotypes, challenges assumptions, humbles you, and most importantly expands your community.
The third is the democratization of knowledge. Knowledge used to be owned by the elite but that is changing and the voices of the marginalized are becoming louder. Take for example TEDx, the Arab uprisings, Grameen Phone, which have not only disseminated knowledge to the poor but more importantly allowed the poor to share their voice on a global stage (Watch this TED talk by Chris Anderson if you don’t believe).
Because of this extended community, I do believe this movement is bigger and perhaps we can show the world what global inclusivity truly means.
Any Different?
The second part of the question was, “is this movement any different” than any other social justice movement we have seen?
I do think this movement is different. This movement is more about convergence than divergence. For example the 60’s were about divergence from the mainstream while this movement is about convergence of a social agenda into mainstream thinking and in particular business practices. We are seeing an emerging group of system changers that are pushing us to think beyond the traditional silos that force us to make a decision about whether we build our careers in business or nonprofit. These system changers are starting to experiment with integrating their social change passion with their private sector professions and vice versa.
Take for example 2009 Acumen Global Fellow Heidi Krauel. Heidi is one of the most astute business women I have ever met. Heidi has chosen to build a career that straddles both business and social change, she is the COO of New Island Capital, a social investment fund that deploys patient capital – at scale — to generate risk-adjusted financial returns. What people like Heidi are doing is validating for the rest of us that you do not have to make a choice between business or social, in fact you can find a way to do both (disclaimer here, it is not easy and does involve sacrifice). Other movements were more exclusive, only for the activists or the tree huggers, this movement is for anyone.
This concept of increasing the size of the pie is a fundamental aspect of our leadership strategy at Acumen Fund. We want to extend the idea of community and create role models (currently through our team, the Global Fellows Program, and now the East Africa Fellows Program) who can transcend boundaries and have the operational and financial skill sets combined with the moral imagination to build a more a more inclusive society and social system. If we can make social impact a board room topic (see Michael Porters recent article on “Shared Value”) and make financial sustainability, transparency, and accountability a part of the grassroots discussions then we can break down barriers that keep us so divided (and have prevented social movements from being as pervasive as they could be).
So, in short, I do think this movement is different and more pervasive, do you?
Social Justice as a term is very nebulous and hard to define. As a result, it is questionable if Social Entrepreneurship can even be considered a Social Justice movement - if only given the vague nature of the term Social Justice. Having Social objectives may not be the only criteria for being considered a Social Justice movement.
ReplyDeleteFurther, given that any one definition of Social Entrepreneurship is hard to be agreed upon, one may question if it is truly "one" movement, or several movements under one broad umbrella -- or once again, if it is a movement at all.
That said, what comes across very well in this post Blair, is an identification of the ways in which different forces (e.g. social media) have added texture and additional dynamics to "social entrepreneurship" broadly speaking. Versus previous "movements" or changes or whatever - what we see now, how we see it, and how we share it is certainly different from what we saw only a few decades back.
What will be interesting to understand is if other movements have come to an end (or at least the force of the movement has abated), and if social entrepreneurship is truly a movement, when will it abate, or even end?
Thought-provoking post Blair.
Wow Shane, thanks for your comment. Can't wait to discuss in Nairobi next week!
ReplyDeleteBlair
Though I am part of this movement, I am yet to be convinced of its efficacy. Is this convergence a good thing? Or are we just trying to appease ourselves by not having to make difficult choices? Has this convergence been effective? Is it subject to the same level of scrutiny as traditional NGOs and the private sector? And as far as social investing is concerned, there is a lot more talk than actual on the ground investing. The biggest problem I find with social investing - why would any normal investor accept below market returns for enterprises that are unable to justify their social impact. Think about it. Its an important point.
ReplyDeleteDoing good and making money seems to be the tag line of our generation where we want to have it all. It has been amazing to see the new talent coming to the sector, people who would have instead be working in the private sector. In the last couple of months, I have learned that social problems cannot be solved from solely a private sector perspective. Any long-term convergence needs to be matched with short-term divergence in terms of adopting new approaches and skill sets, which for someone from the private sector involve thinking more like an NGO worker - patience, empathy..wait did i mention patience :-)
Finally, I think that divergence is important for the long term survival of this movement. I am talking about the divergence of ideas - challenging each other on how to best reach our social impact goals. We need people who are willing to speak up and challenge each other instead of singing the same song. Some healthy skepticism is necessary to keep social entrepreneurs accountable, similar to how things are for regular entrepreneurs.
Khuram
Thank you so much for you note, but I do have to say I am not totally on board with your thoughts. This movement is not just about social investing or "doing well by doing good" (while I agree with you that those pieces have their challenges). I believe this movement is much bigger.
ReplyDeleteIt is about bringing society into the private sector board room conversations and about incorporating transparency, accountability, and choice into the non-profit sector. And at a macro scale it is about building a more inclusive society and social system.
As for your convergence/divergence comment, I have a different definition for the two. I believe that divergence is what keeps us in our silos, ie. "i can't talk to you because I believe x". Divergence focuses on the differences while convergence focuses on the synergies. Thus by its very nature convergence is about challenging ideas and involves allowing ourselves to listen so much we may just change or shift our perspective to see the others persons point of view.
Khuram, skepticism is a wonder characteristic but do not let it keep you from allowing yourself to really listen, see new points of view, and identify possibilities amidst some of the greatest challenges.
Blair
Thank you for your response Blair. I think we can agree to disagree on some of these issues but a couple more thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. You say this movement is much bigger. But if you look at the actual data, the current size of impact investing is approx. 1 billion / year. This is still a tiny fraction of the $125+ billion that the G8 provides in development assistance to poor countries. I agree that the movement has grown significantly in terms of the launch of social impact funds and even mainstream interest with DFID most recently launching a private sector department. But, given the size of impact investing, we still have a long way to go before we can claim that the size of rhetoric attached to this movement is as big as its influence and impact.
2. Your argument is based on the assumption that bringing the private sector will lead to transparency and accountability for nonprofits. However, that is not always the case if we look at the recent financial crisis in the US - a country which is touted all over the world for its transparency - where banks were involved in excessive risk taking without any accountability from shareholders or regulators. A parallel to development is the current crisis in the microfinance sector where the for-profit approach of SKS has been said to tarnish the credibility of the entire sector. In fact, I would argue that for-profit microfinance has done more harm than good for the NGOs that were working in the sector.
3. Finally, I am more optimistic about social entrepreneurship than I may sound. But I am more influenced by data/facts than stories (I think there is a name for people like myself). My experience in the field has really changed how I think about NGOs. But my biggest asset is my curiosity and flexibility - and so perhaps one day I will end up in your camp. :-)
Khuram