What is the difference between a peace entrepreneur and a person who has devoted their career to building and advocating for peace. Is there a difference? Guest blogger Adrienne Villani of our partner Beyond Profit addresses this long-running debate below.
We've been ruminating lately on something that may ruffle a few feathers. It's about the definition of social entrepreneur. Traditionally, an entrepreneur (the "mainstream" species) is a person who runs an enterprise or a venture. She is an ambitious leader, likely the founder, who is held accountable for the risks and outcomes of the operation. She is the face, the talking head, the company personified.
Did you notice anything in the description above? Other than the fact that we chose to use she instead of he, what's interesting is that we think of an entrepreneur as the proverbial "King - or Queen - of the Mountain." Go it alone. Winner takes all.
Somehow, it seems strange to apply this logic to social entrepreneurs and social enterprises. From what we see, social enterprise, as a sector, is unique: its focus is on the change that an enterprise creates. How a community is transformed. How the environment benefits. You get the drift.
Of course, social entrepreneurs are part of the cult of respect. Some would argue that only certain kinds of (often unreasonable) people are capable of being successful social entrepreneurs. They are driven, passionate, and possess a "don't quit" attitude. (Harvard, at their Entrepreneurial Finance Lab, is even pioneering the use of psychometric testing to measure people's natural predisposition to entrepreneurship. Results pending -- look for more information in a future issue of Beyond Profit).
We agree, social entrepreneurs are unique. And amazing. But, what about the crew that supports the enterprise, and augments the work of the entrepreneur? If we are not all born with the "right" combination of enterprising traits, should we throw in the towel? More importantly, where do the employees of a social enterprise fit on the scale of entrepreneurial abilities?
From our experience at Beyond Profit, we know that employees of a social enterprise feel a strong sense of ownership over their enterprise, of their enterprise's mission, of their work. Often, since many social enterprises are in start-up phase, all team members are forced to be entrepreneurial in both their thinking and in their actions. So then, don't we all have the capability to be socially entrepreneurial? Can we call ourselves social entrepreneurs even if we aren't the president/founder/supreme leader? Why do we need to draw a line in the sand?
We would love to hear your thoughts!
Originally posted on Beyond Profit
Thanks for this information,
Thanks for this information, it was very helpful. Keep up the good work.
Qbasic | Website Templates | Zitate | Translation
nothing is black and white
A very good point indeed. I have been part of groups which have discussed variations of this topic time and again. Here is my take.
The primary thing to look for behind any entrepreneurial venture, social or otherwise, is the motivation. Needless to say, the motivation varies from person to person. If a venture has been co-founded by more than one persons then there is a good chance that even their motivations may be different. Similar is the case for two different employees of a social venture.
And in this case, I personally feel there should be not much differentiation between social ventures and the normal "profit-minded" ones. Because in both cases, it is the duty of the founder/supremo to ensure that each employee relates with the organizational goal. There are cases where the job profile of the second/third rung of employees is not unique by it being part of a social venture - in the sense for an individual it just boils down to tasks and no association with the larger goal.
Bottomline, as I believe, we should be striving towards a situation where there is no distinction between social enterprises and the conventional ones - the social aspect should just come natually (and I do not mean CSR).
Aishwarya
nothing is black and white
Great points, Aishwarya!
I particularly agree with your last point -- I would love to see a world where there is no distinction between social enterprises and conventional ones, there is no need for CSR, etc. I really subscribe to the idea of making the "social" into an integral part of the business model. I'm just not sure the critical mass is there yet. But I think we, both at an individual and organizational level, will have the opportunity to play a big role in this.
- Adrienne
But I think we, both at an
But I think we, both at an individual and organizational level, will have the opportunity to play a big role in this.
Marius
---------------
marius99230@yahoo.com
http://emailextractor14.com/
This is a great great question.
I think that the definition of an entrepreneur limited to someone who starts a venture or entity is much too narrow.
There is plenty of room within organizations for entrepreneurial types to flourish and spread their wings of passion and innovation. Granted this takes a special kind of organizational culture.
I prefer to weigh a person's ability to embrace innovation and high risk/high reward scenarios much higher than having to be the one in charge. Very few ventures are really initiated by just one person. Yes, one may be the extrovert that becomes the face of it but that doesn't make that person more entrepreneurial than the one that was also there from day one or maybe even day two; in the early days, the risky, days, the days of dreaming and endless days and night and little or no compensation.
And strong and innovative organizations often are incubators for future entrepreneurs that ultimately do strike out on their own.
This is a great great question.
This is a great response. The positive energy emenating out of it is palpable (and I'm probably on a computer far far away)
I like what you are saying. Personally, I'm lucky enough to work for an organization just like the one you describe - with plenty of room for entrepreneurial types to flourish and spread their wings of passion and innovation. I thank my lucky stars each night when I go to bed :)
It's about Entrepreneurial Bond
In my opinion I find it primarily rooted in semantics. Entrepreneur & entrepreneurial all can be used at differing degrees to signify differing levels of commitment and ownership in an organization. People can identify themselves however they like, I refer to my best friend as a brother or family although technically he isn't either of those, but I do it anyway because we feel a brotherly bond to each other. So maybe it's the "entpreneurial bond" between employee and the organization and how deeply one is committed regardless if one started an organization, that helps establish proper usage of the word entrepreneur.
Kevin Asuncion
Push the World Forward
@kevinasuncion
It's about Entrepreneurial Bond
I think semantics are playing a HUGE role in social enterprise and social entrepreneurship these days. I still don't think we've agreed of definitions in the space, and people and organizations operate using very different definitions. I think, perhaps the biggest question, to my mind is - Is a social enterprise only for-profit?
I'd refer you to a great post on this topic on the Clearly So blog -
A Social Business World Divided by a Common LanguageIntraprenuers
Way to keep the conversation going!
BeDo will soon release the media from our event on how to Intrapreneur within Corps.
http://www.mybedo.com/intrapreneurs/
Post new comment