Social entrepreneurs are not superheroes

One of the matters that was at issue in the unheated debate between Charles Leadbeater and Andrew Keen the other day was the balance between group creativity (promoted in Charles' book We-Think) and role of the individual, celebrated by Andrew.

This tension is sometime evident between social entrepreneurs (who don't go a lot on committees) and those in the community and voluntary sector suspicious of individuals raising large sums of money for good causes, sometimes without much evident accountability. Are they just in it to build their profile? Do the ends justify the means? But then, can you ever get anything done unless you cut through the bureaucracy?

Politicians and media love social entrepreneurs (unless they crash) because they produce great human stories and photo-opportunities ... but they can appear somewhat self-regarding, which is why I didn't much care for the style of i-genius when it launched. A bit too "get the T-Shirt ..."
They are currently preparing for an i-genius World Summit in Thailand, which certainly sounds super:

The conference will be held at the superb 5 star Indigo Pearl resort, which not only provides us with a stunning and inspiring venue, but is also eco-friendly, consistent with our desire to run an ethical event.
Our ethos is to create a place to meet amazing people and form strong partnerships, and to host an event where the participants create the energy to make great things happen.

Anyway, the School for Social Entrepreneurs has a nicely-balanced post on their blog, Superheroes and celebritisation, picking up on a piece in the Guardian by Rob Greenland in which he says social entrepreneurs are not superheroes. Rob - who also blogs at The Social Business - writes:

We all know that social entrepreneurs can be great storytellers, but I think we are in danger of believing our own hype. Social entrepreneurs are inspiring, but they are not superheroes. Indeed, they are all the more inspiring for not being superheroes. However, a superhero story is much easier to tell, so that is what we tend to hear at conferences and in marketing material produced to justify the significant investment in social enterprise support programmes. Nice, positive stories, easily digested by politicians and policy wonks - but do such comic-strip portrayals inspire anyone else, or do they leave the rest of us mere mortals feeling powerless?
There is also a danger in focusing on the sector's big-hitters. I love the Eden Project, Cafedirect and the like; I'm just bored of hearing about them. My clients are even more bored. In the last month alone, three clients - all from voluntary sector organisations making that painful cultural shift into charging for services - have asked me for examples that might inspire them. Each time I struggled. I could either give them the same old stories, or more complicated ones from my own experience of people like them struggling to adapt to that pick-and-mix world of income generation, grants, donations, service level agreements and contracts.
I am aware that in writing this I'm setting myself up as the sector cynic, but I assure you that is far from the truth. I am massively enthusiastic about social enterprise and social entrepreneurship; I just believe that the reality of social enterprise in 2008 is a little more complex than the picture that tends to be painted.

As usual it's not an either-or. After citing a couple of earlier posts here and here, the SSE author writes:

Basically, our take is that successful social entrepreneurs create networks, build movements, inspire communities (and involve and engage them), establish teams and so forth: there are no superheroes who do it alone, and most social entrepreneurs you speak to will always emphasise their team and the many people who help(ed) make it happen.
But (and this is one thing I'm taking from Andrew Mawson's book, review to follow), individuals do drive and lead change. Someone brings the group together, someone has the casting vote at the meeting, someone keeps things ticking over, and someone initiates things. There are risks in promoting individuals as the solution, but there are equally risks in endless committees, muddled partnerships, well-meaning talking shops and so forth.

There's more balanced thinking in the post, ending with " ... people should judge organisations by their transparency, the quality of what they do, their stated governance and so forth."
Not sure who wrote the piece: it's just Posted by SSE. I think they could risk a bit of celebrity:-)
Photocredit Randy Son of Robert

Technorati Tags: socialentrepreneurs

Comments

[Nick Temple]

Thanks for this David, I keep forgetting to change the account details to have my name on it....

[David Wilcox]

Thanks Nick, thought it was you but didn't wish to presume ...

[Rob Greenland]

Thanks for the link and your comments David. You're absolutely right it's not an either/or - and as you say you often need an inspirational person to kick-start other people into doing things. My interest is trying to ensure that the examples we use inspire people, instead of making them think "I would do something, if only I was as super-talented as that person over there."