an A-Z of facilitators (sort of)

A while ago, I was encouraged to create an alternative (social) entrepreneurs A-Z - and it seems to have been generally well received and appreciated by most people who've read it.

It came out of my work supporting entrepreneurs of all types over the years, and I've recently wondered if I should do the same with other parts of my 'professional' working life...

Some may know that amongst the things I 'do', is facilitate: getting a bunch of people to create, agree, or resolve something together - although it's actually usually more interesting and exciting than that sounds. 

And that's the rub with being a facilitator - most fellow facilitators I know all agree that until you know what facilitation can do, and how it can benefit your team and organisation, it's hard to be able to convey the full magic of it (a bit like the first Matrix movie back in 1999: you couldn't be told what the Matrix was back then, you had to experience it for yourself, and then you'd understand it completely...)

So I've had a go at an A-Z of what it means to be a facilitator, and what you can expect of us. But as this is also about helping to explain what one is, I've tried to approach it as an acronym:

F - friendly: open and non-judgemental, on your side

A - accessible: finding ways to make things best work for you

C - childish: after all, who doesn't want to play out and have fun whenever we can?

I - idealistic: trying to keep focus on the bigger picture 

L - Lego: there are lots of different styles, tools, and approaches to how facilitation can be 'done' (including playing with these magic bricks!) 

I - insightful: helping probe and prod ideas and assumptions to best make sure they're 'right' 

T - talkative: helping keep conversations and discussions flowing

A - accountable: if we can't make it work, then that's on us for not doing our job properly 

T - tree-top views: in not being part of your team, we can bring a new perspective to help you make sure that you're seeing the 'wood for the trees'

O - open: you know your organisation and people better than we do, so we want to hear your ideas about how to make things work

R - robust: people throw a lot at us, and we can take it. Tough conversations, sensitivities, and taboos. We'll hold your confidences, but also won't take it personally or expect you to hold back if things start to bubble up

But as with all definitions, the above may be missing or mis-leading in places - so by putting this out there, I'm hoping other facilitators will be promoted to counter-suggest better words for each of the letters, and people who haven't experienced the magic that a good facilitator can bring (other than copious amounts of post-it notes, fancy pens, and sheets of flip chart paper) can start to glimpse what you might be missing out on...

why are the new wave of start-ups being called the purpose-led ones, when they aren't?

I'm not sure if it's because of the types of circles I usually find myself moving in, or the bias of how stories are reported in the media, or because there really is a general sense of it, but it seems that we're in a period when most new start-ups are being referred to having 'purpose' (and more so than existing/previous waves of start-ups)?

If this is really true, then I'm wondering where are all these new businesses who apparently are motivated by their values and wanting to create impact actually are: 

- the most commonly googled questions by entrepreneurs and people starting up their business include NOTHING about purpose, impact, values, etc (see https://www.hitachicapital.co.uk/business-finance/invoice-finance/invoice-finance-blog/the-most-common-questions-startup-owners-ask-google/)

- and the most frequent search by type of business offer being started is for clothing. And whilst I agree that there are some needed and 'proper' things happening in this industry (labour behind the label, for example), this is an industry that's also strongly associated with a plethora of negative impacts (the cost of 'fast fashion', etc)

So, based on the data from the biggest search engine in the world, these new waves of 'purpose-led start-ups' maybe aren't as prevalent as is being otherwise suggested to us.

Or maybe they're simply not using google to do the research they need to launch their new ventures like the rest of us do?

Is the growth in CICs actually damaging the wider social enterprise movement?

Some people may be aware that I've always questioned and challenged the Community Interest Company (CIC) legal form (see previous blog posts here) - largely because I've found that most social enterprises who've incorporated with this form have subsequently learnt that it wasn't actually the 'best fit' for them and their business model, and because what they're usually presented/'sold' as it being, doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny when looked at by evidence and research...

However, there are several social enterprises out there that I've supported to gain this status - I've always seen my role as an adviser to help people make better informed choices, not to tell they what decisions they should be making.

And it's in that vein, that I come to be typing this latest blog - prompted in part by a recent article by Pioneers Post on the 'explosion' of CICs during the pandemic: https://www.pioneerspost.com/news-views/20210825/record-number-of-community-interest-companies-amid-rise-of-grant-funds and CIC regulator wind up extent and causes

My concern about this sudden 'blossoming' of CICs is that rather than being a good thing in showing the growth of social enterprise in general, it may actually be more damaging to the sector in the long run...

Let me walk through through my thinking here, so as to try and help clarify and explain this rather bold assertion - and as always in my blog posts, you can leave comments to refute or challenge any of these:

1) Social Enterprises should be trading businesses, but most CICs aren't

In the absence of an overarching legal definition of what absolutely defines a social enterprise, the sector bodies have reached a consensus on what their defining characteristics should be (interestingly, none of which specify particular legal forms). Front and centre in these is that a social enterprise should be (or be clearly moving towards) generating most of its income from trading activities - but there is no requirement for CICs to need to trade, in order to generate their income or achieve their social mission! 

• when you apply to be a CIC, the application asks "if" you make a profit, not "when" - so the CIC Regulators' assumption is that most CICs' default business model will be that they expect to them lose money each year and/or will be reliant on grant funding to achieve their social purpose (you can't make a profit/surplus from grants);
• according to the CIC Regulator in their own published annual reports, most of the CICs they register will be wound up within 18 months - usually because they were unable to access the grant funding that they thought this legal form would enable then to be awarded.

2) Why are social entrepreneurs being encouraged to set up social enterprises in ways that mean they don't need to trade? 

As this legal form seems to be oft promoted to start-up social enterprises and social entrepreneurs as being the 'best form' for them, but it doesn't actually require them to act in ways that facilitate them to better meet the qualifying criteria of being what they say they want to be - how do we reconcile this apparent contradiction?

3) Are the public now seeing CICs as another form of charity, creating confusion about what social enterprise really 'is'?

If the most feted legal form for social enterprises to adopt therefore doesn't encourage the 'social enterprises' using it to act as social enterprises (with some evidences finding that CICs are actually more reliant on grants than charities are!) - it's going to cause confusion amongst others (who are already confused about what social enterprise is from the lack of a legal definition). If CICs are seen as not trading to achieve their social purpose - how will this not confuse people as to the need for social enterprises to trade: are social enterprises therefore just another type of charity, rather than a revolutionary/innovative/transformative way of doing business?. And this confusion will surely mean its harder to create more consistent messages about what social enterprise is and can do, in order for the sector to realise its full transformative potential.

However, as will all things, there are exceptions to the above - there are social enterprises out there who've never taken a penny in grant funding; who have found clever ways to harness what many feel to be 'too risky' elements of the CIC form with regards to the powers of the CIC Regulator over them; and who are trailblazing for the wider sector as a result.

My interest here isn't to decry this specific legal form wholesale, but rather to try and contribute to a wider ongoing discussion that means as a sector we can be more coherent, and ultimately make it easier to achieve the things we aspire to.

So how do you actually start a social enterprise?

'Social enterprise' is a phrase that seems to be increasingly commonplace, and something that we're all being encouraged to start-up to if we think we have an idea for a new project or a business that might do some good in some way.

There's also a lot of 'stuff' about them out there: mapping by Social Enterprise UK; webinars on how they can best report their impact and how they're changing the world for the better by Social Value UK; offers of funding for how they can support local communities continue to recover from the impact of the pandemic; and such like...

But I'm often approached by people who want to know the answer to a much more basic question about social enterprises - how do I actually set one up?

Well, the good news if that I've been running seminars, boot camps, and webinars covering this for about the last 20 years, and hopefully will be able to distil them down into a few pithy bullet points in this blog to help you start to chart your adventure into the lands of social enterprise...

1) You'll already have a (social) idea, but is there actually the potential for a trading enterprise in it? 

Have you identified people or organisations who might be willing to pay you money (which is different to offering you philanthropic grants) for what you're going to be doing? 

2) How are you going to raise the money you need to get it started?

It's very rare than a start-up enterprise of any kind will have customers who line up in advance of it officially opening for business, to pay for the services and goods before they've even seen them. So have you thought about not only how you'll raise the cash you need for those early bills, but also where you'd be happy to seek it from?

3) Do you see yourself as a lone hero, or part of a 'Scooby gang'?

Creating any new enterprise is hard work and risky. Social enterprises even more so, because of the additional dimensions they have (balancing social mission with need to generate cash; trying to keep a set of values and ethics central in every decision made; feeling a responsibility to try and save the world...). So do you feel you can take it all on by yourself, or are you looking to recruit others to work with you in developing, leading, and managing it (and how will you ideally structure these relationships between you all)? 

And what measures can you think about putting in place to support yourself (after all, if you're supporting the birth of this exciting new social enterprise, whose looking out for you in return)?

The next steps in starting up a social enterprise flow from these, and may seem far more mundane in comparison, but are true for any enterprise thinking about starting up:

- create some budgets to help you manage costs and make sure you're going to be charging the right prices;

- pick a legal structure that will help you manifest and protect all of the above;

- register the enterprise with HMRC and whichever regulator is responsible for the legal structure you've picked, and open a bank account;

- do some marketing;

- Oh yes: and get out there to tell people you're now 'here' and so some selling!

Once these are in place, then everything else you come across out there about how social enterprises can thrive and prosper should start to make more sense.

But if you'd like to explore these steps in more detail, chat about how to tell if your idea really does have sufficient potential to be a trading enterprise, or would like to know about any other aspect of social enterprises, feel free to get in touch: I'm always happy to have an initial conversation by phone or video without charge or obligation.

can we please stop using the word 'pivot'?

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..?

the danger of believing 'official statistics'...

Some of you may recall how I've argued in the past about how we should take the 'encouragements' and direction offered by our sector bodies with more than a generous handful of salt...

And I've based those arguments on where such bodies get their money from, and whom they're trying to curry favour with rather than asking us what their priorities should be; (don't believe me? Think back to the last time a sector body you're in membership of openly asked you what they should be doing on your behalf, openly published the results, and then reported on how far they'd delivered against those).

Some of you also know that I have a habit at looking at published research and data - not as a trained mathematical/economic analyst, but rather as an 'enthusiastic amateur', to see what new (or contradictory) stories they might offer to help us better understand ourselves and the issues we face.

And my latest 'rummaging' concerns the NCVO's Almanac and Social Enterprise UK's 'State of the Sector' survey. And the reason for picking these two august bodies? I'm refreshing some of the training courses and materials I deliver around governance in the sector, and though it might be interesting to see what both sources have to say about latest trends (as they both map legal forms adopted in the sector, and both published their current findings for the same year: 2017).

As with all surveys from different bodies, they've framed and categorised data relating to the same question against a range of different options and headings, but with a bit of rough transposition on my part, what seems to emerge is a picture of some confusion:

Quite some difference.

But so what you might say (and perhaps rightly so) - NCVO is concerned with those organisations who are predominately volunteer dependent (hence the title), whereas SEUK is concerned with enterprises that are trading - so we'd expect to see a difference, right?

Well, here's why I think this is more of an issue for us than we might think it is:

1) Policy makers, funders, and commissioners all group charities and social enterprises together into a single pot (hence the term 'civil society'). 

They don't differentiate in the way that our sector bodies do, so when they come to make policy and pass legislation that will affect us, how can we have confidence they're making the right choices when the data we're presenting them with to do so appears to be so contradictory?

2) Where the data comes from. 

NCVO's Almanac draws upon several external, objective, and credited sources, so should be pretty sound. SEUK's data is largely a collation of the returns they've received to a call for survey responses from groups in the sector - so their data is only as good as the people who fill out the forms. And that could be more of a problem than we'd like to admit: as a result they list sole traders as recognised legal types of social enterprise in their report (not sure anyone else would?), and 6% of all the CICs who responded weren't able to identify or be categorised as to whether they have share capital or not which, when added together with the other 'uncertain' responses, shows that over 10% of all respondents whose data has been collated and published as reflecting the realities of the sector today don't know what their legal form is - so how can we trust that they'll be any more accurate in other data that they give?

Let me put this another way - if we were building a house wouldn't we want to have confidence in the nature of the foundations, and that the way they'd been created would subsequently stand up to scrutiny from a variety of inspectors and other builders to ensure that what we're building doesn't come crashing down around us in the future when the weather gets rough..? 

If the data we use to act as the comparable 'bedrock' in shaping support, interventions, and lobbying for the sector is found to be suspect in the future, isn't there therefore a risk that a lot of efforts now would be wasted, hence why it's important to make sure we test such data today..?

As with any mapping exercise, there will always be ways in which the methodologies used, and the way the analysis on data captured can be criticised. My reason for doing so here isn't to belittle or reduce the efforts of these 2 bodies, but rather encourage us to pause before citing an 'official statistic' about our sector to make sure that we can be confident that it really is accurate, and in everyone's best interests to be using for the reasons we are.



UPDATE - 19 Sept 2018

There's been some new mapping research published today by Social Enterprise UK that seems to have picked up on some of these 'vagaries' I've outlined, and offers a more robust methodology in starting to scope the true shape and size of the social enterprise sector: https://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/the-hidden-revolution

Also, there's been some good debate and rebuttals and cross-rebuttals over on LinkedIn that you may also want to check out (including from the ex-deputy chief exec at Social Enterprise UK!): https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6447793971262418944

the best national business support policy may be no policy at all...?

I recently found myself on an 'expert panel' at a forum convened by ISBE (the Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship) on the future of business support policy in the UK, as part of their ongoing conversation into informing and shaping what a new national policy should be.

(OK - to clarify, I was technically there as Leigh Sear of SFEDI and the IOEE, but as he'd been called away overseas, he asked me to fill in for him, hence the confusion of my having 2 names at the forum.)

And while I shared various stories and approaches to business support with those present, I thought it might also be useful to capture here some of the other speakers' arguments and discussions with those in the room that stuck with me, as well as some of what I took away that I'm still mulling over, and that will likely also inform my own ongoing activity in this field:

The definitions debate

With the almost fetishism of high growth in business support policy, it seems that the definition of what constitutes 'high growth' may be too exclusive in excluding many businesses who are seeing significant increases in revenues, but aren't matching this with creating lots of direct employment opportunities (such as software firms, and something that will be be increasingly the norm with the rise of the 'gig economy').

As a result, many businesses who have the potential to contribute greatly to our economy are being sidelined and overlooked - surely to our cost...?

Not a 'bottomless well' (of growth)

It also seems that business growth isn't something that can be sustained - various data sets shared by the ERC(https://www.enterpriseresearch.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ERC-InsightPap-HartDanes.pdf) all indicate that firms can only experience grow for about their first 5 years, and then all mature and plateau; so if policy is to prioritise support for growth, we need to be more open and honest in recognising that businesses are only able to do so for a time limited period.

Measures of success

There seemed to be a general consensus that we need to use more that just financial measures to consider success in business growth - and that these should reflect the aspirations and motivations of the entrepreneurs and owners behind the businesses.

However, I've an idea that whatever these measures are should share the same characteristics as metrics in financial accounts: that they can be bench-marked externally to help us better consider how we compare and contrast with others to fully appreciate just how successful we really are, and that they can be aggregated to form data sets and evidence bases to allow us to better represent and lobby on their behalf.

Whose benefit is policy actually for?

Discussions around the different players active in the business support arena raised a question about who business support should be for, and who should be paying for it. Public policy should take a utilitarian approach, facilitating and enabling the most benefit for the most people, and in the real world, this means that the State can't appease everyone, or provide for all business types and needs (hence it's prioritising of high growth over sole traders as it believes this will create the most impact for more people).

However, we're seeing private firms starting to offer accelerator and incubator programmes, and also sponsor others' enterprise development and growth initiatives. So rather than try and create a single public policy that will encompass everyone, should we rather be taking an approach that uses simpler policy frameworks around different themes and types of enterprise/entrepreneur; better recognising that in some instances the private sector is better placed, and should be leading on elements of support?

The rationale (and risks) for enterprise education to be a recognised part of business support

There seemed to be agreement that any role Universities hold in delivering any policy around business support needs to include elements of enterprise education, and while there are good reasons for this, there are also some risks too - 

• teaching and encouraging entrepreneurship amongst students increases their future employability by developing skills that employers value
• degree apprenticeships creates opportunities for universities to capitalise on their role as a provider of learning, but there's no clear models for how Universities might best harness this new model (yet...)
• there's a risk that in some universities having linked their offer of enterprise support to that of national policy, many student startups are being 'lost' or 'fail to launch' as the University is too focused on encouraging high growth and Intellectual Property-based ventures
• with the rise of corporates taking active roles in offering business support (including where there may not be an immediately obvious business case for them to do so), there's a need for Universities to better co-ordinate their offer with these to capitalise on knowledge and expertise that both are developing - but tellingly, there was no presence from any such corporates at the Forum...

The holy grail: creating a pipeline of support for startup to high growth

Within any national policy that emerges, there will need be a recognition that encouraging new startups is just as important as supporting growth in existing businesses - but that its also difficult to ensure that this progression is smooth or able to be well managed. This is largely because of not only the sheer diversity of different business types and motivations, but also the plethora of support available to them at different stages and in different sectors.

In theory, Local Economic Partnerships should be well placed to better co-ordinate these support offers to maximise their potential for wider benefit, but the experience of many seems to be that owing to the governance models of LEPs not being inclusive or transparent enough, that such knowledge and co-ordination which could unlock the potential of many firms, isn't happening.

If we can only do one thing...

As a closing to the panel debate, a few straw polls were taken of people in the room, asking for shows of hands to gauge what the focus of national policy should be if it could only focus on one thing: more start-ups, or more scale-ups.

(Personally, I'm in favour of more start-ups: they create and encourage more diversity and choice in an ever-changing society; help us develop more resilience; and research shows that the larger firms tend not to stick around that long anyway - the FTSE100 has a churn rate of about 10% each year!)

Overwhelming the room voted in favour of more start-ups.

latest research suggests CICs are still trying to make their way in the wider world of social enterprise

So - as some of you know, I can be a bit of an anorak when it comes to sector governance, and statistics. Not just because my brain seems to enjoy doing it, but because I think that sometimes it's hard for us to get a proper understanding about what's really going on in our sector unless someone looks at published data afresh and offers an alternate view. (David Floyd and Nick Temple are both great at this, and also much more thorough too - I tend to look at headlines only here on my blog)

Anyway - every so often, someone publishes a survey about their part of the sector, and inevitably they never benchmark their charts against other peoples findings... This makes it hard to understand what might be really going on in the context of the 'bigger picture', and therefore how we can best support and celebrate each other.

So in spare half hours, I try and find a comparison against which to try and make sense of such published surveys.  Last time I did this was on the Big Potential programme from the Social Investment Business. Comparing their report of social ventures supported against the wider sector suggests that they've been very successful in engaging a 'new breed' of social enterprise.

But this time I'm interested in CICs, because the CIC Association has recently collated and published its 10 year survey of this form of social enterprise. Now, I want to be very open and honest here in that I've never been completely sold on the idea of this legal form for various reasons, but I've always been open as to why, and also supported some clients to gain this legal form (see other posts here tagged with 'CIC' for more).

The CIC Association survey contains lots of charts and headlines, and in trying to make sense of if these show this type of social enterprise to be in 'good health' or 'having some cause for concern' I've compared it to the wider Social Enterprise UK 'state of the sector' report.

But - a few words of caution before proceeding further:

1) the CIC survey was published in spring 2016, and the SEUK survey in autumn 2015 so there's bound to be a little 'drift' in the sector over that year

2) the CIC survey is concerned with CICs only; the SEUK report includes CICs as part of the wider response base, so there's also some variance and risk of some 'double counting'

However, for my own purposes and interests in trying to stimulate some wider discussion, I'm not too hung up on such technical variances as I think the 'broad brush' comparisons are what are interesting:

• CICs are more likely to be trading directly with the public (75%) than other forms of social enterprise (30%)
• CICs are more likely to fail in their applications for finance (43%) than other forms of social enterprise (20%)
• CICs are more reliant on grants - 25% have them as their main income compared to 11% of other forms of social enterprise
• CICs are likely to be smaller than other forms of social enterprise - most have turnovers under £10,000 compared to in excess of £50,000
• CICs are more likely to be structured to have share capital (private ownership) than other forms of social enterprise (34% vs 11%)

• Both CICs and other forms of social enterprise prefer grants as the preferred option for financing growth
• Both CICs and other forms of social enterprise are likely to be micro enterprises (less than 10 employees)
• Both CICs and other forms of social enterprise are growing year on year in similar ways (60% and 52% respectively)

So there's potentially some clear markers here that make CIC very different to their wider family of social enterprises (more public facing, more open to having private ownership), but also a lot of common ground too (size, growth, and preference for grants to support growth).

However, might there also be some contradictions emerging within this latest survey of CICs too? Potentially they could be seen as a weaker form compared to their 'cousins' in the wider sector, based on their being:

- more likely to be reliant on grants,

- seen as a riskier proposition by investors (based on the extent that they're able to access finance applied for),

- more likely to be marginal businesses (based on most having turnovers below what the average salary in the UK currently is..,)

- that 28% of CICs saying that this form has not had a positive effect on their business.

But its still relatively early days for CICs: while their 'honeymoon' period looks like it might be starting to wane, other forms of Social Enterprise have been around for a few hundred years longer, so investors and funders are probably still getting to grips with the CIC form.

And as I caveated earlier, the above are very much 'broad brush' findings that I've drawn out in a half hour over a cuppa.

However, my hope is that this will help to contribute to the wider discussion, debate, and further analysis. The aim of which should be to help us to better understand how to best support and encourage this (and other) form of social enterprise, so that they can realise their full potential. And in doing so, help bring about a slightly shinier, fluffier, and groovier world for all of us to enjoy.

is the universe trying to tell me something?

Many people who've shared some of my professional life will know that I seem to be able to engage quite well with most people, and either be able to offer the support they need (however obscure or technical) or know someone who does.

I've always glibly explained it's "because my brain is wired funny", but a couple of recent events are making me wonder if it's actually because I may have inadvertently become the answer to life, the universe, and everything...

Most people know of the famous 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' book, and that in it, the answer to life, the universe, and everything is revealed to be "42". Well, that same number seems to be starting to crop up in relation to me... the number of my twitter lists, my ranking on a delivery schedule - so this is where I turn to you, dear internet: should I consider taking up 'guru' status (something I've always tried to avoid in the past), or am I just suffering from too much 'Deep Thought'?

answers on a postcard, please (or failing that, the comments box below)

I came, I saw, I (possibly) embarrassed myself...

So I was there (as were lots of other people) - the first 5-day festivalof Social Enterprise hosted by Greenwich University (and pulled together by Harsha Patel who we can't thank enough for doing so!). And what's even more exciting was that I wasn't just there to heckle from the back seats and prop up the networking bar, I'd been invited to be part of the headline acts alongside some of social enterprise's rockstars.

And while others can tell you far better (and honestly) how I really was, and how useful and engaging my activities and support offered were, it strikes me that I may have been either very foolish or incredibly brilliant in my contributions as a keynote speaker to the closing debate - 'should all entrepreneurs be social entrepreneurs?'.

You see, many people I have the privilege to walk alongside for a time in encouraging and supporting them to realise their visions (both as individual entrepreneurs and sector bodies) regard me as a fine example of a 'social entrepreneur'. Except I don't think that I am one - a social entrepreneur is motivated by wanting to change the world for the better, and to earn some money along the way to keep the lights on and the cats fed. A 'traditional' entrepreneur has an idea for how to earn some money to keep the lights on and the cats fed... And I fall into the latter camp - following some questionable behaviour just over 10 years ago by a very large regional business in the sector, I'd relocated to the other end of the country and found myself without employment and a young family to support.

But having been raised the way I have, rather than sign on at the job centre (only 2 streets away), I began knocking on doors to find work (and have been hustling ever since). So you see, my motivation is about supporting my family - and part of that is not just keeping the lights on, but also trying to help leave the world is a slightly better place for my kids as they start to make their way into it. And part of how I try and live my life is also trying to manifest certain values and principles in how I work. All of which apparently make me indistinguishable from a social entrepreneur by my actions and impacts.

But what does it matter if people label me as something I don't think I am? If it doesn't get in the way of what I'm trying to achieve for myself and others, am I just having an existential mid-life crisis? Is it more important to consider how we act, and the impact we have on others, rather than what we call ourselves?

And I bared all of this publicly on stage at a national event in front of media, sector leaders, and hundreds of people who were also wondering of social enterprise is the right thing for them.

So - what do you think, was I incredibly clever, disruptive, and have moved the debate on to its next paradigm (never thought I'd use that word in a non-satirical context!), or have I just ruined any professional reputation and credibility I may have had...?

Initial reaction in the room and on twitter seems to be positive - but I think my duck may have had a lot to do with that ;-)

my alternative (social) entrepreneurs' A-Z

It’s all Chris Lee and Liam Black’s fault.

If they hadn’t started their ‘entrepreneur’s A to Z’s, I’d have happily sailed on, but something like that, to someone like me… well, you can see from Chris’ blog where he published his A-Z that I was compelled to offer some kind of ‘harsh truth’ alternative. And then he asked me nicely if I’d do my own social entrepreneurs’ A-Z, based on my own experiences of being a micro enterprise these last 9 years, and supporting countless others over the last 3 decades….

So here it is – a no-holds barred, ‘what they don’t tell you about what it’ll be like’ A-Z of being a (social) entrepreneur. And I’ll probably change my mind about most of these after Chris has posted them up, but nothing lasts forever, so here’s my alphabet for now:

A – anxiety; this is natural. Best to medicate symptoms with beer and cake.

B – bluster and bravado; people will take you more seriously the more confident you sound, so don’t be so British: be more American in how to present and promote yourself!

C – coffee; there’ll be many late nights. And even longer weekends, so make sure there’s always plenty in the kitchen.

D – denial; you’ll deal with a lot of this in your clients. Brush up on your diplomacy with them.

E – eggs; they’re good for you. Eat healthy. You’ll thank me for that later.

F – fooling around; don’t forget to try and have fun in what you do. It you wanted a boring job, you should have got that job stacking shelves in a supermarket.

G – goosebumps; there’ll be moments of such excitement when you realise you’ve pulled off what you thought wasn’t possible within the laws of this universe. Enjoy them, revel in them, and encourage others with stories about them.

H – hype and spin; there’s a lot from sector bodies and politicians. Learn how to spot it, and how to ignore it.

I – internet and social media; a wonderful source of faux companionship, and also of filling those odd bits of time between meetings and other things.

J – jumping through other people’s hoops; you can choose not to, but then you won’t get any paying work. Choose your hoops carefully…

K – kleptomania; keep your stationery supplies topped up by taking the free pens, etc from exhibitors and conferences

L – lies, damned lies, and statistics; you’ll start out wondering how anyone can behave apparently completely dishonestly in their dealings with you. If you’re not careful, you’ll eventually start to turn into them…

M – money; you can never have enough, and you often won’t have enough. As much as you wish you could get through this world on love and fresh air, someone’s got to pay to keep the lights on.

N – naughtiness; get into trouble – it’s the best way to get noticed and create impact (and you can always apologise later…)

O – opportunistic; grab chances where you see them – they’ll probably not come around again for some time…

P – pubs; you won’t see the inside of these as much as you used to/would like to.

Q – questions; people don’t asked enough of them, especially about (sometimes questionable) advice they’re offered from ‘expert advisers’

R – research; you can never do enough: keep learning about everything or you’ll quickly be surpassed by others.

S – stories; in the end we’re all stories. Make sure yours is a good one.

T – time travel; you’ll wish you had this to cope with shifting deadlines by clients.

U – universe; the universe is a big place – don’t forget that: it might help keep things in perspective.

V – values; know what you stand for, what you’re willing to compromise on, and where you’re not happy to go: once you’re out there, it’s easy to drift into ‘bad habits’ otherwise…

W – wives (and other types of spouse); you’ll spend less time with them, so make sure when you do, that they know they have your full attention.

X – xenophobia; don’t avoid outsiders – they’ll often be more interesting and challenging to your ideas (and therefore success) that you usual crowd of mates will be.

Y – yellow snow; never eat this. And never overlook the value of advice and support that also reflects common sense – it’s a rare commodity.

Z – zoos; sometimes you’ll be the zookeeper, sometimes the animal being expected to perform. Remember that both have their place, and neither can flourish without the other.

 

This post first appeared as a guest blog on enterpriseessentials blog on Dec 17 2014