Why I think Ed Mayo got it right (but mostly wrong) about co-ops and charities

Ed Mayo blogged recently about how he saw charities and co-ops being able to learn more from each other than is traditionally thought (after all: charities are based on philanthropic gifts and a desire to help out other people, whereas co-ops are based on an ethos of mutual self-help through economic trading).

And I was interested in what he had to say because I've also often thought that many other movements and sectors are more aligned to co-ops than might appear at first glance (for example - trade unions; but more on that later...).

But as much as I like Ed (after all, he did buy me a round of whiskey after I called him out at a conference he was chairing!), I can't help but feel he only scratched the surface - and I think that co-ops and charities are much more aligned with each other in more fundamental ways that he argued in his piece.

Ed pointed to 3 areas that related to how many charities are seeking to encourage more open memberships and participatory governance (both principle tenants of co-ops), and exploring 'social investment'. But these could equally apply to many other types of organisations within the wider and broader social enterprise movement.

Sorry Ed, but I have an idea that co-ops and charities are much more closely related, and at fundamental levels:

Firstly, lets look in general terms, starting with the values that define co-ops - 

• self-help, self-responsibility - internal to co-ops and their members, these are both things that charities would agree that they try to encourage and nurture within the people they support
• democracy - as Ed highlights in his blog, participatory governance is something that's a growing trend amongst charities
• equality and equity - are both enshrined in charity law to ensure that charities support people and communities in a transparent and fair way, regardless of circumstance
• solidarity - it's extremely rate to find a charity that isn't working collaboratively with other charities, or part of bodies such as the ncvo (the charities' counterpart to CooperativesUK)

And going on from that, lets then look at the principles through which co-ops enact these values - 

• voluntary and open membership - charities offer support without any condition of a person being a member, in much the same way as many co-ops
• democratic member control - membership charities have AGMs and other governance functions that mean their Trustees remain accountable to the members
• member economic participation - OK, so you got me on this one. This is pretty much co-ops only (although I do know of lots of co-ops where members aren't engaged economically with what their co-op does...)
• autonomy and independence - just like co-ops, charities are required by law to be free from any undue control or influence over them by means of corporate membership or private ownership
• education, training, and information - just as co-ops need to ensure their members are supported to be able to fully discharge their responsibilities of being such, so charities also need to be offering the same 
• Concern for community - a principle of co-ops, this is a mandatory expectation on charities through the public benefit reporting requirements that they're subject to

But the correlations don't stop there:

1. There are examples of recognised co-ops also being registered charities (for example the Co-op College)
2. The development and support needs of co-ops and charities are often the same 
3. Co-ops and charities are both recognised as being pillars of the wider social enterprise/Third/social sector (as typified by the mapping undertaken by the likes of Social Enterprise UK, and ncvo grouping them together)
4. In manifesting and managing their values and principles, some co-ops have created separate charities
5. Just as charities can trade, many co-ops can also access and be awarded grant funding 

So - charities and co-ops are closer bed-fellows that some might care to admit. And that means that when we think about who we should look to for inspiration and models of practice to learn from, each shouldn't automatically dismiss the other.

And to end where I began - co-ops and unions are closer than many might think in many ways, and this is being recognised and furthered through memorandums of understanding being created between some of the federal bodies of each sector. So might we see similar agreements and commitments starting to appear between the bodies that represent, support, and advocate for charities and co-ops in the future..?  

why do we keep insisting on keeping social and 'regular' entrepreneurs apart, when both have the same sh!t to deal with..?

In my experience of supporting various start-up programmes throughout the UK over the last 20 years, and having walked alongside many for part of their journey, most entrepreneurs don't call themselves that. 

They're simply people trying to make a go of an idea to either help them fix a problem they see in their community or help them get a bit more financial security for themselves (usually both).

So I'm increasingly frustrated when I keep seeing national sector bodies re-enforcing a narrative that social and non-social entrepreneurs need special treatment that somehow doesn't seem to apply to the other:

• the School for Social Entrepreneurs recently posted about the 5 ways that social entrepreneurs best learn - but if you took out the 'social' in the title, you'd instantly recognise them as being exactly the same way that any non-social entrepreneur prefers to learn too...

• and the recent Good Deals conference emphasised the impact that being a social entrepreneur has on their mental health - echoing the findings of the World Economic Forums' own research into the mental health of all entrepreneurs around the world... (but not seeming to make any reference or links to this...)

It therefore seems that if you identify as social or not as an entrepreneur, you're probably going to be sharing the same needs, concerns, and preferences for how you access the support you want - and this isn't anything new either: cross-sector research I did into social enterprises, charities, and private businesses all the way back in 2003 (an era of dial-up internet!) found that regardless of which sector people identified as being part of, they all had the same development needs and shared preferences for how they accessed learning and training.

And to my mind that suggests that we're continuing to miss a trick in amplifying the impact that entrepreneurs could be making on society's problems, and the wider economy - why are we creating this artificial segregation of entrepreneurs based on their founding motivations, when the support they need is the same.  And surely by learning and growing together they might better encourage, inspire, challenge, and ultimately "be" more than the sum of their respective camps..?

In the enterprise programmes I've been fortunate to have been able to manage and lead over the years, I've always sought to encourage such a 'mixing it up' philosophy, and although none were ever evaluated on the grounds of it being mixed-sector entrepreneurs, no-one in them seemed to have any problem in undertaking their journey as an entrepreneur with the others who had differing visions or motivations to their own.

So when we will we start to see (social) enterprise support agents admit that these divisions between sectors aren't really that valid or justifiable, and in doing so, be able to be more inclusive in releasing support into our wider communities and economies for the benefit of all..?

accelerating to 'Launch' speed...

I've always been a keen proponent of enterprise education in all its forms, and for all ages too - not just for the sake of encouraging more start-ups, but because I think it can offer genuine benefits in whatever we choose to (or find ourselves doing) in the future.

As part of this, I've always sought to work with Schools, Colleges, and Universities - one of which is Salford University, with whom I seem to have built something of a long-term relationship, as I'm now well into my 7th year of them asking me back to work with their subsequent intake cohorts of undergraduates.

The design of their offer to students who are interested in exploring and launching their own enterprises has changed over the years - including seeing more leaders of courses and schools within the university becoming more interested in 'exposing' their students to speakers like me to help them better understand 'the enterprise option'; (I've always especially liked it when the drama school asks for these as it means I can perform my 1-man startup show on a proper stage!).

But perhaps most excitingly, the university's enterprise team has recently launched a dedicated accelerator on campus, branded 'Launch'.

And rather than assume that just because they have a business school and an MBA programme they know what the best content to teach and offer through it would be, they've linked in with the Growth Hub, Santander, and others to offer students a more rounded, complete, and stronger support offer.

Fortunately for my own enterprise practice, they've asked me to reprise my role as a mentor and adviser to some of the latest cohort in the accelerator, to which end the University recently invited me to the launch of their latest Launch programme.

And it was at this launch that I was inspired to jot these thoughts down for my blog for 2 reasons - what undergraduate students want to get out of being part of an accelerator, and the key message that seemed to be being broadcast to them:

in contrast to what we seem to hear from other national and international accelerator programmes who laud themselves on the investment they help start-ups to gain, students motivations at Salford's Launch feel much more 'earthy' and 'real life':

- people are wanting better clarity over the future of their business

- people recognise that being part of a peer community can offer them the confidence and accountability structures they know they'll need to see their ideas through

- some people feel they's lost their mojo, and the accelerator is a good opportunity to find it again

And as for the key message to these start-ups: "be a sponge (of knowledge and ideas), rather than a sponger".

As to the journey that this cohort will be taking, and what their experiences of it will be - well, I'm going to be fortunate enough to walk alongside some of them over the next few months, so I'll try and check in later this year with some thoughts of what happens at the other end...

who in their right mind would be self-employed?

I've been self-employed for over 13 years now (although more by accident than deliberate design), and I increasingly hear arguments being made everywhere as to why more of us should set up our own businesses, become self-employed, or start a career as a freelancer. 

But in all the hype and excitement, I can't help but feel that people aren't being given the 'full picture' of what they might be trading off in not pursuing more traditional employment options, and as a result, rushing into something that makes their lives harder and less happy than they might potentially have otherwise been.

Don't believe me? Well, what about these various published researches that highlight the 'dark truth' about self-employment that very few (if any) of its advocates share with us:

less earnings and more poverty - 

- as a body of workers, we're increasingly likely to be earning below the minimum wage, and the trend is that this will be true for majority of us within the next 2 years: 

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/self-employed-slide-further-into-poverty/

and

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/why-low-paid-self-employment-is-everyones-problem/

and

http://businessadvice.co.uk/hr/employment-law/government-urged-to-protect-freelancers-with-self-employed-minimum-wage

- compared to our 'employed' counterparts, we're actually earning less now than we did 20 years ago: 

http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/press-releases/typical-earnings-of-the-self-employed-lower-than-20-years-ago/ 

- and compared to those same employed counterparts, we're also paying more in tax on the earnings we can make than they do on the wages they're paid:

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/self-employment-whos-dodging-the-tax/ 

- changes to our benefits system by government, means that for those of us who qualify as being eligible for some type of income support, we'll now be about £2,000 a year worse off than before...

http://businessadvice.co.uk/hr/payroll/universal-credit-leaving-self-employed-over-2000-a-year-worse-off-than-employees 

- all of which means that many of us have very little (if any) cash savings to fall back on in the event of a 'rainy day':

http://smallbusiness.co.uk/business-savings-strains-self-employed-2542586/ 

more sickness and worse (physical) health - 

- we're not entitled to sick pay: if we get sick, we can't earn or claim anything in the way that our employed counterparts can:

http://businessadvice.co.uk/hr/payroll/self-employed-demand-statutory-sick-pay-ahead-of-any-other-benefit

- as a result, over 80% of us who fall ill will work through it, as we can't afford to stop earning, placing further risk to our long-term future health:

https://www.moneydonut.co.uk/news/self-employed-risk-health-working-through-illness 

more loneliness and worse (mental) health - 

- working for yourself means you're more likely to suffer from loneliness and the anxiety that's associated with this:

https://www.fastcompany.com/3059317/how-ive-learned-to-thrive-with-the-loneliness-of-freelancing

longer hours and less time with / more stress for our families:

- if the main household earner is self-employed (as was my own experience for 12 years), then not only are their relationships with their family increasingly likely to suffer, but their family will also begin to feel more stressed as well:

http://businessadvice.co.uk/insurance/health/pressures-of-self-employment-creep-into-family-life

- we also work longer hours (typically 13 hours a day), with less time off for holidays:

https://www.sectorsdonut.co.uk/news/forget-balance-self-employment-about-work-life-blur

- and women in particular struggle to be able to maintain a semblance of controlled hours if self-employed, juggling multiple family responsibilities which lead them to have extremely elongated days with little (if any) time for themselves and their own well-being:

https://www.startupdonut.co.uk/node/120747 

retirement?

- less than 1 in 5 of us is able to save into a pension (unlike our employed counterparts whose employers make regular monthly contributions into one on their behalf on top of the salary they pay them..):

https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/self-employed-pensions-the-ticking-time-bomb.html 

So the research shows us that to strike out as an entrepreneur means you're more likely to be poor/in poverty; suffer long-term ill health; have worse relationships with your family; and never be able to retire...

and you what makes this even worse? Government is aware of all of this from the official statistics it collects and openly publishes, yet somehow doesn't seem to be able to get around to doing anything about them: 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/trendsinselfemploymentintheuk/2018-02-07 

If I've made it sound like self-employment is a bleak landscape that only the wretched and foolish would dare to venture into, I apologise. My interest in collating and presenting these various and multiple researches is, as always in my blogs, a desire to share knowledge in helping people make more informed decisions and being able to spot/avoid hype - it's not all doom and gloom for everyone. After all, 15% of us do it. And we do it for a variety of reasons: the unavailability of other forms of employment, the need for flexibility around family/caring responsibilities, the desire to use a personal skill or passion that outweighs the apparent cost of maintaining it as a sometimes hobby, and similar.

And in light of our Government's apparent disinterest in us, we're also increasingly finding ways to support ourselves:

Facebook groups like Freelance Heroes - https://www.facebook.com/groups/freelanceheroes

Campaigns like MicroBiz Matters

- https://microbizmattersday.rocks/blog/

Pooling of financial support for each other through co-operative initiatives such as 'Bread Funds'

- http://breadfunds.uk/

The current state of self-employment and freelancing may therefore be very precarious, but we can perhaps have hope of a brighter future if we start to take more action in all of our interests by working together, and supporting each other more..?

debt, decommissioning, and death - the dark side of social entrepreneurship...

As a sector, social enterprise always seems to be talking about upbeat and positive stories - you never really hear about chief execs running off with pension funds, administrators foreclosing the business causing the loss of hundreds of jobs, or things like the government having to bail them out...

And I've an idea that that's because as a sector, there's a lot of political agenda being acted out, and that's led to a sense that we can't talk about failure or difficulty - because that would go against the narrative that the sector is trying to present to the wider world.

But that's surely a dangerous thing? If we're not open about the 'tough stuff" that goes on - the failures, the losses, the pain, then how can we hope to develop a generation of social entrepreneurs who are truly realistic about the marketplaces that they're leading their ventures into, and what may be asked of them personally if they're to be able to make a success of it all?

There are signs of hope though - the rise of "FuckUp nights", a model of support to help entrepreneurs recover from failure, that we've imported from our American cousins. And I was also greatly encouraged from recently being able to participate in part of a 12 month national programme of support for social entrepreneurs: all the ventures being supported through the programme meet together once a month and the first thing they do is share what they've been struggling with - not as a ploy to gain faux sympathies, but as a powerful model to build supportive relationships through showing vulnerability, and allowing opportunities for their peers to reciprocate by sharing in turn when they've faced similar and how they tried to deal with it.

And the struggles people share aren't what you might expect based on the messages and stories usually coming out of the sector - it's a hard shock to some to hear about:

• how fellow entrepreneurs have found themselves taking on debt that they now can't repay; 
• how despite the push for us all to pursue public sector contracts, those services we win and deliver are being increasingly decommissioned, leaving ventures with a business model that no longer works and no obvious way to continue the support they've been able to offer; 
• and the loneliness of being an entrepreneur when a close family member dies - working the grief and pain that's felt, while at the same time trying to also keep a fledgling venture running and support its staff and clients...

Social enterprise, like any other form of business, is tough. And we're surely only setting up future social entrepreneurs to fail if we don't encourage each other to be more open and honest about how tough it can really be sometimes?

just because you didn't get wet, doesn't mean your business won't be killed by floods...

We're fast approaching 2 months since Todmorden and the rest of the Calder Valley got hard hit by the floods that washed out last year's Christmas.

It's a good time to pause and reflect on not just how far we've come in our recovery, but also how far we've still to go - some businesses are now admitting that they were perhaps a little optimistic in initial estimates of how long it would take to re-open, and many are also starting to feel the wider knock-on impacts, realising that the damage the floods have wrought continue long after the waters have subsided, houses dried out, and stock replaced...

While many businesses were fortunate not to be directly flooded, those that were have had mixed fortunes in their recovery - the local Council has recently extended its criteria for business recovery grants to now recognise home-based businesses, and there have been a number of successful crowd-funding campaigns, but others have found the cost of recovery just too great a burden to manage and have sadly shut up shop for good leaving us poorer as a valley in terms of our diversity of employment, industry, and character.

And it's that knock-on effect that people are now starting to feel able to talk about - although their premises weren't flooded, they've still lost trade and income from losing their suppliers to floods, or there being far less trade along the valley as consumers start to shop elsewhere, believing that nowhere will be open after seeing the widespread images of devastation broadcast by the media of the area.

And it's only now that they're starting to talking about it, because of feeling guilty that they weren't flooded so they don't have the same right to complain as those of us who did - yet their livelihoods (and those of their employees) are suffering nonetheless.

Although there are support packages being made available for businesses affected by floods, (and they all have different criteria), one thing they share universally is that your business has to have had water enter your premises. But as we're starting to see as people increasingly come forward and start to speak out, flooding can destroy any business without having to come anywhere near your building...

But as before, when I profiled what local businesses responses have been in the initial aftermath, the community is once again rallying to support its employment and livelihoods - Hebden Bridge is becoming the 'North Pole' of the Valley at the end of June when we're re-staging the Christmas we lost: festive lights are being put up, a big tree in the square, snow machines, carol singing,... a great opportunity to remind the rest of the world (and its consumers!) that the Calder Valley is rising to greatness again! So please feel free to come and share some of your spending power in supporting those businesses for whom you're the only source of support..

bonkers? why I'm staying as a sole trader, and not setting myself up as a limited company

Many freelancers and the self-employed are also limited companies – while this isn’t a pre-requisite for anyone wanting to go into business for themselves, many see it as an attractive option for all sorts of reasons including “tax efficiencies”, limiting personal risk, and being able to more easily engage with some procurement systems of other organisations so that they can do business with them.

But I chose a long time ago not to incorporate myself (despite the apparent benefits that doing so would offer me), and I thought it was about time as to why I ‘fessed up as to why this is:

1. the tax question – although I don’t know of any empirical studies to back this assertion up, my perception is that most self-employed who incorporate themselves do so to take advantage of the different tax rules that apply to companies, and as such are able to reduce the extent of their earnings that are ‘lost’ to tax payments. But I actually feel quite privileged to be able to pay tax, and while I may not fully agree with how the government decides to spend it all, I like knowing that there’s money in the pot to pay for teachers at the schools my boys go to, for hospitals to be able to stay open, and for street lights to be able to stay turned on at night. It’s also a way that I can further manifest some of my Christian values – I can’t practically care for all of my neighbours in need everywhere, but through tax payments, I can know that there’s emergency help available to them when they might need it most (wherever they may be in the world).
2. the risk question – given that in the eyes of the law, a company becomes a legal person in its own right, then if things start to go ‘pear shaped’, its the company that would take the hit not the individual person. And while this may be more appropriate for some with regards to the types of risk their business may entail, for me, I’d be concerned that it would start to make me less stringent with myself: after all, if I knew that if things didn’t work out I wouldn’t have to take legal responsibility for any fallout from clients, investors, etc, why should I try harder to make sure it works? 
3. the ability to get work –oddly, most local authorities can’t directly commission me because of the way in which the rules they have to abide by work, yet national government departments and bodies have never had any issue with contracting with me... however, I am aware that in some instances, I can’t bid for contracts because I’m not the ‘right shape’ (i.e. not a company). But there are ways around this that I think are actually more beneficial in the long-term: I can collaborate and partner with other companies to jointly bid for these contracts, and in doing so build more mutual support and resilience into myself and other companies – better relationships all round, rather than trying to do everything by myself (and it can be lonely enough at the best of times in being a freelancer).

So there you have it – the reasons why I’ve no immediate desire to incorporate myself into a company (other than the hassle of the extra paperwork it would entail...)

But maybe I’ve missed the point somewhere? Would be very keen to hear from fellow freelancers and self-employed to know why they are/are not companies themselves...

great co-op myths of our time (or why we need more competition and less collaboration...)

Co-ops: they’re great, right? Everybody seems to love them, and they’re often held up as models of enterprise that can fulfil some of the most challenging aspects of our societies: creating sustainable employment, empowering the disenfranchised, addressing poverty, ...

But sadly, there are many myths and mistruths perpetuated about them through ignorance, which are probably part of the reason why co-op enterprises have never really ‘taken off’ in this country like they have in others, and are often treated with trepidation by the wider business community.

There’s plenty of material already out there (if you only look or ask for it) that helps to dispel some of these myths that relate to decision-making needing to involve everyone, all employees needing to be paid the same wage, etc, but I wanted to pick up on one that seems to be creeping in to not just rumours about co-ops, but also has implications for the wider economy too: competition.

Co-ops are defined by a set of universal values and principles, which include ‘co-operation amongst co-operatives’: the sense that the sector grows stronger by actively supporting each itself and each other. But this isn’t the same as not competing with each other as some seem to think (based on a few recent twitter conversations...)

Competition, if open and honest, between co-ops is actually quite important and vital: it forces them to constantly question assumptions about how things should be, what customers want, and if there might be a more effective way of achieving the end goals. That doesn’t mean co-ops have to undercut or metaphorically backstab each other, but as part of co-operating with each other, it should mean that there’s a healthy and open discussion about what each might be able to do that’s different to the others, and which will ultimately also mean more choice and benefit for customers and the wider community and society.

Competition stops us stagnating and being overtaken, and surely better to be in ‘healthy competition’ with people who share our underlying values, than a faceless corporation whose only interest is in making as much money out of people as possible?

And this sense of competition being something we should encourage amongst ourselves shouldn’t be limited to just co-ops - collaboration is being increasingly encouraged between businesses within all sectors and industries, so as with so much else, the co-op movement would seem to have some useful learning for other these other marketplaces and enterprises to draw upon and be inspired by.

 

Competition – it shouldn’t be a dirty word for co-ops, but rather one which should be encouraged and celebrated as a means to make sure we keep upping our game so we can have ever greater impacts on our communities and the wider world.

new support for local communities to raise startup finance from their neighbours

The consultancy.coop, a small Co-operative Development Body (CDB) based in south Wales has recently set up a new website aimed at helping new and growing co-ops with their Community Share Issues.

Alex Bird, one of the partners in the co-op, realised after working with a number of community co‑ops trying to finance projects through share issues, that whilst they could market themselves easily to local people, communicating to the wider public wasn’t easy on a small budget. He and his colleagues have worked with community shops, community centres, pubs, football and rugby clubs, festivals, food co‑ops, bike shops, off-road cycle centres, recycling projects, gyms and energy co‑ops, and all had difficulty marketing their share issues. Many didn’t proceed with a share issues because they couldn’t see how they would get sufficient share sales and the activists involved looked to other sources of finance such as grants and loans.

Some projects they’ve worked with have been very creative in their share issues, linking up with credit unions and CDFIs to enable people to get lines of credit or save up to buy shares, but they still find it difficult to contact their diaspora, and you can only raise so much from local people.

Many projects have a wider appeal than just their immediate neighbourhood, and there is a large body of people across the UK and further afield who don’t have a project nearby but would like to support one.  Real ale pubs, vegetarian and vegan shops, football clubs, and of course ecological and green energy projects are examples of projects with a broader appeal, but many such projects weren’t getting through to their potential share buyers, and at times weren’t hitting their finance raising targets.

After many discussions about who wasn’t doing what and whose job it was to sort out this problem, and why “they” should be doing it, consultancy.coop did what co-operators always do in the end – got on with it themselves. Using the well-known open source software from WordPress and with the help of Co-operatives UK Internet Services they have set up a .coop site from their own resources.

The new website is up and running at www.shares.coop and features all the Community Share Issues they know about free of charge in a classified style listing, plus lots of advice and guidance. The site is presently entirely self-funding, although as it develops they hope to bring some sponsorship on board in order to raise income and grow the site, so they offer paid for features as well as the basic free listing.

are we all missing the real point of social franchising?

Social Franchising is seen by many as a Holy Grail or magic bullet to so many: depending who you speak with, it’s about:

• ·      scaling your enterprise for even greater impact (Unltd)
• ·   generating even greater impact in addressing social ills in society and communities throughout the country (various government policies and politicians)
• ·      the way to increase the number of successful social enterprises to ‘critical mass’ (Social Firms UK)

and lots of other reasons, all of which are broadly in keeping with the sentiment that social franchising is talked about as a growth strategy for existing social enterprises to achieve more of the good they deliver.

But I’m wondering if everyone’s missed a really obvious trick here, and actually missed the point of what social franchising is actually really doing in practice: it’s a way of fast-tracking the creation of consortia within the sector without all the time and energy usually needed.

There’s lots of interest in consortia for all sorts of reasons (easier to procure larger contracts, greater purchasing power, saving costs on shared back office functions, etc), but consortia development always begins with the assumption that there are a number of existing groups who identify some common shared interest.

And surely Social Franchising offers the same things as consortia: a larger scale of linked activities through which it might (amongst other things) collectively more easily procure larger contracts, share administrative functions to reduce overhead costs, greater purchasing power,.... The difference is that the consortia that emerge in this way would do so without the need for the usual time-consuming and costly negotiations that are otherwise needed. They would also emerge more in line with current real market trends and opportunities rather than simply because “it seems to be a good idea...?”

I for one would therefore like to see some dialogue happening between the various sector bodies that are currently encouraging and facilitating consortia and social franchises in completely separate ‘silos’ to each other. It may be that nothing comes of such chats, but it could perhaps unlock a new way of approaching both the development of consortia and how successful social enterprises look at how they franchise themselves...

why I won't be taking up the offer of unlimited bacon sandwiches...

(so: bacon sandwiches - who's mouths are watering already...?)

I got up at 5am this morning to drive into Manchester to attend a business networking meeting -  some of you may have already deduced from the time and references to bacon, that this was a BNI event.

(For those who aren't aware, BNI are a world famous business networking club, priding themselves on enabling local businesses to generate £m's of sales leads and referrals for and amongst their members. They're also infamous for meeting at "I didn't know this time of the day existed"-o'clock in the morning, and kick starting people with liberal quantities of coffee and bacon sandwiches.)

Anyways - I'd been identified as a business whose services weren't otherwise represented within this particular group, hence the invitation to 'meet and greet' and maybe sign up. 

And it was a good way to spend a few hours - I've always argued that its good for any business to put itself into situations it wouldn't normally naturally find itself, and given I work all over the country, the opportunity to meet with a 'local' business network seemed interesting...

However, despite the warm welcome, and seemingly limitless amount of bacon sandwiches, I'm not signing up. Not because I don't like bacon, or because I think networking and referrals don't work (its lovely, and they do!), but because the way BNI works is by members' commitment to regularly meeting each week, and given where I am in the time of my life, I can't offer the other members that assurance - and that would only be unfair on them, and ultimately myself, so sadly I'm forgoing the prospect of a weekly bacon sarnie fix...

But its an important reminder about the way we do business: relationships are crucial, and the way relationships prosper and thrive in ways that create mutual benefits is through commitment - and while we might not always be able to offer people in our networks the levels of commitment they might like, there are other ways to keep in touch and remain connected. Some people prefer to do this in person, others, like me, make the most of other means to be able to do so...

why mission statements are a waste of time

Any time you get involved with reviewing or creating a new organisation, someone inevitably asks (and probably rightly so), “but what’s our mission statement..?” – without such a focus, it’s very difficult to be able to get everyone working together, motivated and generally able to be better at what it is that’s being done.

But trying to define that elusive vision which provides the magic answer to unifying everyone, resolving disagreements over purpose, and enable you to easily tell the world what it is you’re about is rarely easy going.

You’ll find that you can easily spend hours (and even days) in consultations involving words, values, images, and so on, just to get to a collective agreement about the general focus of it. And then just as much time again trying to get the exact right words, in the right order (and with the right punctuation!)...

And all for what? Some inspirational statement that most people don’t even acknowledge the existence of, because their view of you is shaped by their experiences of interacting with you – how and what you do with them (as well as for them), and what they hear about you from other people.

What’s prompted me to embark on this seeming rant against the sacrosanct mission statement is that I’ve been invited to join a consortia, and we’ve just spent ½ day trying to agree between the 9 of us what our shared mission should be about... (and still only got it down to 3 options!). Surely we’d be better spending our energies agreeing the broad shape of what it is that’s united us in the first place, and then getting on and doing something to make the world a better place?

But what about me and my consultancy practice? I’ve often referred to having certain values that influence my approaches, so surely I have a mission statement too? Something aspirational, but also a bit vague and ‘woolly’ to make it easier for me to do the wide range of things that I do – so until the next time I review it, here it is:

“to not get caught...” 

the success of small businesses depends on how well they play together

The future of small business may not be that they continue to emerge and grow, but that their success is based on their connectivity – not through social media or with their customers, but with each other in person, through the places where they hang out and do their work.

That’s the view I’m increasingly coming to, especially after I shared a link on twitter recently to the benefits that coworking creates not for the individual entrepreneur, but for their local communities - with it being ‘retweeted’ by various other people, well over 5,000 people have now become aware of these benefits, so it’s obviously something that people are finding of increasing interest and importance.

(And just to clarify, coworking is where small businesses share a common physical workplace and are looking out for opportunities to not only work together on larger contracts than they’d be able to manage on their own, but also for leads for each others’ business.)

There are some good examples of coworking here in the UK– and they seem to work best when the workspace they share is structured as some form of co-operative. But don’t just take my word for it, check out OpenSpace in Manchester.

As small and ‘micro’ enterprises, we seem to be constantly bombarded with messages about the benefits of being more connected on-line, but I wonder if sometimes we forget just how beneficial it can be for our small businesses to be connected with each other in the ‘real world’...

Charities now being created at more than 1 every hour!

The charity commission published its annual survey of what’s happening on the Charity register recently, and I think it makes for slightly concerning reading.

With 3,003 new charities being ‘approved’ in the last year this means that charities are now being created at more than 1 per hour! (assuming 252 working days and 8 working hours a day).

What’s more, the median income of these new charities is less than £30,000 – suggesting that they’re what I refer to as ‘pet’ charities.

In an age of austerity measures, when resources for charities are getting harder and harder to come by, why are so many people feeling the need to form new charities, rather than engaging with, and supporting, exiting ones who are crying out for new blood on their boards and struggling to raise sufficient finance. Surely we need to be better educating people who are thinking of setting up a new charity to encourage them to consider carefully if their energies wouldn’t in fact be better used in supporting those that already exist; or perhaps, as I’ve argued before, charity legislation isn’t flexible enough to reflect our changing society and so people are being forced to create new charities to continue to meet the needs of those most vulnerable in our communities?