how to make carer's leave work for carers?

Earlier this year, there was the introduction of a piece of legislation that gives people in work, who also have unpaid caring responsibilities, the right to take up to a 'week off' as part of how the can better support the person who relies on them in that role.

However, as various researches and stories shared to coincide with the recent #CarersRightsDay by various carers bodies highlighted - most employers (and carers) aren't aware of this, and of those that are, most can't afford to ask for it or take it. This is largely because:

• people in work who are also carers are more likely to already be in poverty, so simply can't afford to take this time off unpaid;
• many businesses' workplaces may struggle to offer the flexibility that a person needs (for example - if they're a teacher, work in a clinical role, or as part of a manufacturing or engineering firm);
• lots of carers simply don't recognise themselves as being such, or if they do, are afraid of recriminations or damage to their future careers if they 'come out' to their employer.

And as a result of their not being able to take this leave, carers are:

• leaving their jobs in droves: currently, in the region of 600 people every day quit their jobs, because they can't balance their paid role with their caring responsibilities. This means a growing loss of skill and talent for businesses, and more people entering a life of poverty (because the act of being a carer means that, typically, you 'loose' at least £20,000 in earnings you would have otherwise earned each year);
• increasingly unwell and becoming mentally ill, because they're having to use their holiday leave entitlements to fulfil caring responsibilities. This leaves them no time to rest and recover, which means that they're accelerating when they'll reach burnout and breakdown points. 

All of this has been percolating around the back of my head over the last few days, and if anyone has a magic wand going spare (or knows where I can pick up a magic lamp with a genie it), this is what might help:

1. Extend the government's existing Access to Work scheme: this was designed to support people with disabilities or mental ill health to gain/remain in work, and is based on the Equalities Act. Carers are (in theory) also covered by the same Act, so what if Access to Work could be flexed to recognise and support carers as well? This would enable employers to invest in/introduce practices and systems that they might otherwise struggle to be able to. And yes, this would mean an increase of cost to the government, but it would also mean more people are able to stay in work, and employers are able to retain the skills and talent they need for growth.
2. Create a 'carers note' system, akin to current GP's 'fit notes'. This would help employers be able to better recognise and 'legitimise' employee's needs as carers, and might also help individual carers better identify as such (most of us don't 'claim the badge' until we've been doing it for around 3 years on average). This also then links into the next idea...
3. Get the Treasury to offer employers the ability to reclaim the cost of an employee's salary when they're on carers leave, in the same way they currently can for maternity and other types of family leave. Carer's are nearly always caring for a family member of some type, so it's in keeping with current systems and rules; and this would also mean that Carers could afford to take this leave too. And yes, it would mean a higher cost to the government, but as with extending the Access to Work idea above, the return would surely show it would be 'fantastic' value for money, on the same grounds?
4. Get higher visibility and profile for carers and carers needs in workplaces, not by recruiting 'ambassadors', but targeting the people that most small businesses listen to and trust the most: their accountants and trade bodies.
5. Finally, remove the +20% growth potential requitement that businesses have to evidence to be able to access funded business support programmes, so more employers can get support in working out how to make options best work for them and their employees who are also carers. Otherwise, lots of employers will continue to lose skills and talent, and increasingly perform less well, which will contribute to the wider economy grinding to a halt...

These is all based on existing government schemes, programmes, and legislation, so in theory, not that difficult to introduce or legislate for?

And... for the half a million of us sole traders and freelancers who currently don't have these same rights as our salaried counterparts (in fact, we don't have any!), these would all largely directly apply to us as well, which helps to remove some of the discrimination we currently face in working in this way.


And yes, any changes to systems that offer government payments can be open to abuse and fraud - but there are already safeguards and checks and balances in place for all of the above where these might be needed, including the DWP's own longstanding practice of being able to recognise a carer and authorise them as an 'appointee' to manage disability payments and other benefits that the person they care for is entitled to receive, if that person is not able to do so themselves. So another example of how the systems and infrastructure needed is already there...

But what do others think?

How audacious, crazy, unfeasible might some of these ideas be?

When is a community not a community? (or, am I an Albatross?)

As freelancers and small business owners, there seem to be constant exhortations for us to be part of a community. And I recognise the various benefit of being part of such peer networks, having invested time, emotion, money (and even professional reputation) in many over the years.

But over the years, despite having been part of many 'communities', I'm starting to wonder if I'm accidentally having an 'albatross effect' on them, as they all seem to 'die' after my being involved with them..!

However, this post isn't about me suggesting I'm a potential jinx, but rather to ponder how the ending of a self proclaimed community might reveal just how far it really was ever a real community to begin with:

Of the gravestones raised in memorial in this post, I'm going to immediately discount Micro Biz Matters Day (which I was a keen supporter of, sometime roadie, and occasionally part of the line-up for), which was staged every year for 8 years, because it never presented itself as a community but rather as a part of a wider campaign that's been championed by Tony Robinson - and campaigns all have a natural life, and the small teams who lead them rightly decide when it's time to move on to the next thing.

In contrast, the other 2 examples are worth lingering over:

Freelance Heroes (FH) was created in 2016 and referred to itself as a community for freelancers - and indeed, created lots of things to facilitate such a sense and practice of community, inspiring many other freelancer communities to coalesce in response to their mere existence: from it's original Facebook group, conferences were added, chat forums introduced, twitter hours with member of the community being invited to lead and manage them, 'featured freelancers' profiled (published interviews and youtube lives), peer learning sessions by member for members, a virtual library of books written by its members, and optional paid subscriptions (with additional pirkx). 

But at the end of 2023, it was suddenly announced by email that FH would imminently be being closed, and all of its associated artefacts and IP (website, forums, blogs, etc) would be being taken down.

Reasons were given about financial pressures, and people's capacity etc, and while there's plenty that FH can be proud of having achieved and influenced, for a body that presented itself as being a community, the upset that many expressed in the immediate wake of the announcement is possibly based on all of us feeling we were part of just that: a community. That the owners of that community seemingly hadn't trusted or respected us enough to share that there may be tough decisions to be taken, or to try and engage us all in conversations about possible succession and legacy options, maybe helps to explain how and why so many people were upset by the announcement - after 7 years of feeling we were part of a community, we suddenly realised that we never were in any meaningful way when it came to the big important decisions about us.

And more recently, the Good Business Club (GBC), established 6 years ago has suddenly made a similar announcement about closing up in the next few weeks - a shock decision that's seemingly come out of nowhere after years of all us members of it being encouraged to be actively involved in leading and developing activities and initiatives for the benefit of the wider community of its members. So again, I'm left wondering, how much of a community were we really being allowed to be, if we can all be disbanded by a discretionary decision of the founders of it?

Importantly, for context, I think there's a lot of things that have been going on behind the scenes at GBC which are highly charged and emotive in leading up to this apparently 'out of nowhere' announcement - based on the official statement of its being wound up seemingly contradicting itself: 

(1) The founder opens by saying that they are stepping down from running the GBC after a tough professional and personal year (but no sense yet of this spelling the end for the GBC, as they'd always clearly managed their personal role and identity as being separate and distinct from that of GBC); 

(2) it's then immediately stated in a bold heading that the community will continue; 

(3) but it's then clarified at the very end that all the forums, websites, and membership fees will be cancelled and ended in the next few weeks (and we're signposted to another paid 'community' we can join instead - which costs 25% more). So actually, despite how this statement began, it really is a 'so long and thanks for all the fish' goodbye to all of it.

All of this leaves me wondering and feeling if its really worth my investing time, energy, money, and emotion into any self proclaimed 'community', when at any time, a small group of people within it can suddenly pull the plug on it all with no warning or notice (as added embarrassment in both instances, I'd been actively working on developing new strategic partnerships for FH with other national sector bodies on their encouragement and with their full knowledge, when their announcement was made with no prior warning - so first I knew of it, was also when the contacts in other bodies I'd been speaking with also found out. And a week before GBC announced its closing, the leaders of it had approached me to talk about my developing and running events and initiatives in the community's name). 

Maybe all these self-proclaimed 'communities' we see out there, aren't really communities at all, if the people who make them up are never actually trusted with hard truths or realities about looming difficult decisions facing it, nor given opportunity to step up and help to mitigate challenges that it may be being faced with?

What I'm taking from these knocks (there have been others over the years - I'm just reflecting on the most recent ones in this post), is that in the future, any group that presents itself as a 'community' and invites me to join, will get a bit more of a due diligence on my part to see just how far it really is a community, or it's actually just a club controlled by a selected few that would actually just like my money to help keep their idea going. And at any moment, the 'rug may be pulled out from under our feet' without warning, and we all find ourselves back in this stage of shock and disbelief about what's happening.

Finally, I'm aware that some people who may read this post will find it hard and painful, because they were part of the leadership teams for these communities, and so will naturally feel a sense of responsibility for how the ending of these groups played out, despite their best efforts and intentions.

This post isn't meant to be any smear or indictment of their character, but an opportunity for me to grieve these wider groups' passing (moving through the stages of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance), and to reflect on the manner in which the process has been managed has on me for how I approach similar things in the future. Very often when 'communities' end, there's an outpouring of encouragement and support for those that made the decision and had bee the figures heads in leading/founding them (and rightly so), but rarely an opportunity or space for those of us who were part of them to reflect on what their ending means for us. 

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.

start-up ecosystems need cold frames as well as green houses

Anyone involved in anyway in the world of start-ups and business growth will be familiar with the range of support models there are out there that make up the 'eco systems' of incubators, accelerators, investor networks, and such like.

And there are good arguments that we need a mix of different supports and types of models because no two start-ups are exactly alike, and different founders and entrepreneurs will respond better to different interventions at different times.

But it struck me recently when I was speaking with a programme manager for a foundation that is seeking to do more to encourage disruptive start-ups (yes Sam, that is you I'm talking about!), that there may be a missing link in all these ecosystems that entrepreneurs and founders can apply to - to use a gardening analogy: there's a lot of 'hot housing' going on out there already (things that help the seeds of a start-up sprout and start to grow more quickly than they would if we'd dropped the seed packet into a flower bed next to the lawn and hoped for the best); but any gardener will attest to this hot housing only being half of what's needed to ensure new plants thrive in the future. 

That's because hot houses are not the norm of the world - our gardens aren't covered and heated to higher temperatures than the British weather usually offers us all year round, so when we move these exciting new plants from their 'bubble' of an ideal world into the real world, it can be something of a shock... Which is why good gardeners will always have a cold frame lurking somewhere - a place that these specially nurtured new plants can best acclimatise, transition, and ultimately get used to the suddenly harder and harsher world that exists outside the hot house that they grew up in and came to rely on.

For our wider start-up ecosystems, where are these cold frames? 

The closest I can think of would be the peer networks amongst founders that they create informally by virtue of having shared the same hot house, but what else might be able to be offered by way of regular check-in, a phased 'moving on' from the hot house facility, and such like? 

Because if we don't have a way to move start-ups out of the hot house in ways that help best assure them on their future survival and success, then they'll get too comfortable, and take up space that other start-ups need if they're to have their opportunity to make it themselves as well? 

why you shouldn't trust your business adviser

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..?

a truly 'out of this world' consultant..?

I've always prided myself on trying new approaches and ideas in not only how I manage myself as a provider of enterprise support, but also the ways in which I offer that support.

But I think I may have just overreached myself, and signed up to something that I can't see how I can ever 'top' - being the first freelance enterprise consultant on Mars from next year!

Those lovely people at NASA are planning their next Mars Rover trip for 2020, and as part of the kitting out of the equipment, have offered to engrave my name onto it - so from next year, I'll have a physical presence on another celestial body (although if any would-be interstellar clients want to try and call me, I'm not quite sure what the prefix code is for earth, nor what the roaming charges would be...).

Conventional business wisdom always argues that in order to be successful, you should not just aim to excel at what you do, but be the only person who does what you do. Well, my list of being the only person in the world who does what I do seems to be growing - 

1) the only business consultant to openly publish an annual social impact report on myself;

2) the only business that's deliberately chosen to remain a sole trader to maximise (rather than minimise) the tax that I pay on my earnings;

3) the only adviser who regularly asks for 360 degree feedback from clients in the form of pictures and asking to be likened to superheroes;

3) and now the only freelancer to have a presence on another planet.

Where do I go from here??

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...

are community businesses starting to fail, or are we simply becoming more honest about the true nature of them..?

A few years ago, there was a jamboree around 'community businesses' - enterprises that are led by the community they're based in; operate and trade to meet the (social and health) needs of those local areas; and generally make that area a better place for everyone to live and work in it.

This was precipitated by the formation of Power to Change - a charitable trust whose remit is to nurture, encourage, and support the growth and impact of this sector of businesses.

Over the last 5 years since it's creation, Power to Change has initiated a range of programmes and support, which have, in turn (and to me at least), seemed to also catalyse a range of other good things starting to happen through other support bodies to the sector.

However, one of the things about Power to Change that's impressed me most, is its commitment to research, data, and openly sharing it's findings. I've drawn on some of these published findings in previous blog posts, in exploring what they can add to other researches and data from other bodies in seeking to better understand specific themes, but this time thought I'd look at their own data on the community businesses they exist to support, from a longitudinal perspective.

I've always thought that having more than a "this year vs. last year findings" is important in any context as it means you can better start to identify trends, blips, and other happenstance events (last time I did this it was on complaints received by the CIC Regulators against individual Community Interest Companies, the findings of which still cause shock amongst people I share it with...)

And when I look at the 4 years worth of 'State of the Community Business Market' reports that have been collated and published to date, I can't help but wonder if we shouldn't be making more noise about the general state of community businesses, and in particular, how the sector appears to be worsening...

As some who've read previous blogs of mine may recall, I don't claim that analyses like these are based on sophisticated or technical regression techniques and other sensitivity analyses in data sets, but merely what a regular lay-person might find if they were to apply some basic maths to the headline figures reported.

In this instance, I took the figures from the last 4 years of reports, and worked out the average (mean) figures of what a typical community business looks like from the headline figures in each - the charts highlight the story, but in summary:

1) there seems to be a general overall increase in the numbers of community businesses (up 2,000 over the last 4 years), but...

2) the average income of community businesses has fallen by nearly £20,000 (roughly 10%) over the same period;

3) the average value of assets they hold each has fallen by over £150,000 (roughly 60%);

4) they're employing 20% less people, and, before anyone points out that that's because they're making greater use of volunteers - the number of volunteers has also fallen too (by around 50%)...
5) they're also becoming more reliant upon grants over trading to help sustain themselves, and continue their activities into the future

Now, it may be that this is all easily explainable: in the reports themselves, Power to Change are very clear and open that each year the methodologies used to research and generate the data are changing - so there's a strong argument to debunk the above on the basis that I'm not comparing like-for-like. Except... for the figure about the overall number of community businesses which seems to be on an upward trend - if anything, this would suggest that the methodologies are actually getting more effective and precise in identifying and profiling community businesses. 

And if this is the case, then that surely means that a combination of things may be going on:

1) the strength and scope of community businesses, upon which national policy and investment programmes have been based, have been over-estimated, which means that the support now available isn't actually what's most needed...

2) Power to Change has been 'too successful' in inspiring a faster than historic growth in the sector of new community business start-ups, whose financial and operational standings will be far more immature (weaker) than their more established counterparts, and this is skewing the overall averages - although the age of community businesses isn't something that's closely monitored in these reports, parallel mapping by Social Enterprise UK highlights that most of the wider social enterprise sector (of which community businesses form a part), are disproportionately 'young' in comparison with private businesses).

So - all in all, a false alarm for community businesses after all?

Maybe, but as I pointed out earlier, I've done this rough analysis on the basis of how someone taking the headline figures from these annual reports might look at them (and perhaps be unwitting misled?)

And given that other national support initiatives, investment, support, and funding programmes usually take a year or two to 'roll out', in light of them being potentially based on flawed assumptions and data, will this mean that they 'miss their mark', unless they regularly pause to reflect on findings such as these about the wider sector that they're working in, and respond accordingly..?

how people I work with really see me... part 2 of 2

As a quick recap from my last blog post: last month I'd asked people to share some 360-degree feedback with me, sharing an image that to them best conjured up the image of what it was that I do, and how I do it.

Responses included a platypus, shoe, Howard the Duck, and an inflatable Christmas tree amongst others, as well as a gif of me fixing railway tracks while the train is still running on them!

But while those were useful in helping me better understand how people view me and how I approach working with them, they don't help me understand what makes me different to the other consultants, trainers, advisers, and cake-eaters out there. Which is why I also openly asked people:

"Having just been named the UK’s 'niche enterprise support 

consultant of 2018', what do you think my ‘niche’ is?"

The general gist of comments seem to show that my niche isn't as typically definable as it might be for typical consultant-types (i.e. a niche in governance for large organisations; or a specialism for equity crowdfunding; and such like). It seems people see my 'niche' as being more to do with how I can take what appears to be complex and confusing amounts of knowledge, and translate them back into ways that mean others can better get to grips with things that are useful and relevant for them. It seems I also do this in ways that mean people are more confident in being able to work with this new leaning too.

And as with the pictures people shared, I'm encouraged by this - niches are usually defined by a specific type of knowledge or particular skill, yet I've always maintained that any of us can learn any knowledge or skill once we see the point and need for them (I had to resit my maths exam at school but subsequently managed and grew enterprise loan funds; support groups apply for investment; and deliver an accredited course in financial management!). 

For me, it's the relationships we make and work through are more important if we're serious about being inspired and motivated by our values. It's also through the relationships we have that we're able to gather the support and encouragement we need to achieve our aspirations in the way we want to, and ultimately change the world in some way.

In the interests of transparency I've include a full set of the responses below - although despite it being listed on my LinkedIN profile as one of my professional skills people can endorse me for, no-one mentioned my expertise in eating cake...

As a final thought, I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to reply to my open call for suggestions (and for making sure I could repost all your comments without having to edit them for swearing!) - as with lots of other ways I approach how I work, this way of seeking 360-degree feedback as part of my CPD is unusual, but seem far more enjoyable for all of us than the usual questionnaire type forms.

All responses received in response to the question: Adrian's niche is...?

I have always said you are good at promoting yourself. I would definitely say that is a strength. Some people will criticise self-promotion, but relationships are everything if you’re a consultant and this must be an element of maintaining networks and relationships by having a presence and trying to stay in people’s minds?

You use props to get attention, to engage, to play, to make light to make things accessible and it's in a way comedy and fun. but there is so much behind everything you do, the preparation, the observation the analysis. You walk this line between entertainer and ridiculously intelligent and knowledgeable scholar. And I think your niche has always been being so accessible and yet inspiring with awe how much you know and how readily you admit to what you don't. You are you and you empower others to be the same! A rare gem!

The third sector expert

Making complex things simple. Also you are most definitely "The acceptable face of Accounting" 

Your niche: early stage small businesses....especially those who are scared into inaction regarding their accounts and book keeping

You share information, spontaneously and generously / you have a creative approach to what you do / you have strong values and a focus on strengths / you really know your stuff, but wear your 'expert' hat lightly

I would say that your knowledge and understanding of the sector and in particular how to prove the impact we have is the main strength of yours. Your ability to work with a range of people at different levels is also a strength.

Your written blogs and so on which are always valuable and help us learn more and debate things we probably need to get to grips with.

Remarkable ability to raise awareness of the critical issues affecting SMEs and the entrepreneurs and freelancers who run them. You are also good with plastic Christmas Trees and fairy light decorations. You are a super hero of endeavour, with a good sense of humour, and untidy shelves, full of stuff...

tap dancing in the House of Commons

Some of you will know that I'm not big on formalities, nor one to readily 'doff the cap' in restraining myself from speaking out or causing disruption for the sake of manners.

Which meant that I was surprised to be invited to the House of Commons earlier this week, after being shortlisted in the national enterprise support awards from IOEE and SFEDI.

Although my famous fez didn't make the journey down to London with me, I was able to share the experience with my girlfriend (although she's not new to the whole awards ceremonies at Parliament, having done similar a few years back, but with the bonus of guided tours by Ministers!). 

And I'd encourage anyone who has the opportunity to add their partners as a "+1" to any business event like this to do so, as being there with her made me much more aware of just how I present myself in such settings, (and reassuringly/worryingly that I'm not that different in private to my public persona!).

Sadly, despite being shortlisted for 2 of the awards, I was pipped to the post on both of them, but the event was a rare opportunity to re-engage with some universities and sector bodies I'd started to loose touch with. 

The setting itself was also suitably prestigious, although the lack of tables for dancing on made me wonder if the organisers had been tipped off about my coming in advance..? 

But despite this, I still managed to thrown down some moves with a tap dance under the main chandelier in the Central Lobby before security were able to move me along...

defining success in enterprise support means not measuring what you think you should

We need a way to check that everything we spend money on, or invest our time in, has worked - otherwise, how do we know if it was the right thing to do? how can we learn from the experience otherwise? and if we don't have some type of indicators of success, how can we be accountable to the people whose money we've spent doing it?

Some readers of my blog will be aware that I have a slightly unusual business model as a freelancer, in that I always try and find, and work though, funded programmes when supporting clients - I have an idea that as well as making my work more transparent and accountable, I'm also helping someone else 'tick their boxes' with regards to helping them spend their budgets where it might be of most benefit.

But within any funded support for enterprises or charities, there's an element of reporting against 'indicators of success': how many jobs were created, how much more turnover does the organisation now generate, what new products or services have been introduced to the marketplace, and such like.

However, I've always had a concern that having such reporting measures, while useful for the reasons I've referred to above, risks the supported organisation starting to focus on doing the wrong things.

Case in point: in recent years, there has been a rise in interest in encouraging more charities and social enterprises to take up the option of 'social investment' (loans and debt) to help them grow and do more good in the world. This has been through programmes offering funded consultancy, workshops and training, and such like. And having been involved in supporting the delivery of several of these, the reporting of any group who accessed support through it has invariably focused on how much of an 'investment' the organisation has now secured.

But the problem with this focused approach to reporting on the success of the support is that its prejudiced and biased - my experiences (and that of many others) through programmes like these, is that many organisations receiving subsequently support find that their business model will never be able to generate the financial returns, nor satisfy the diligence requirements, of investors, however good the support they receive has been.

So they, and their funded supporters, face a quandary: 'fudge' the reporting to suggest that a loan deal is imminent (but never quite materialises), or be honest, and risk the funder asking for their money spent on the support back, with it apparently having failed to achieve what they wanted it to.

And it's a pattern I've seen in other funded business support programmes in other sector over the years as well, with private businesses in initiatives aimed at stimulating job creation and economic growth.

So does this mean that funded enterprise support will never achieve its aims, or that we can never trust what these funders share as the collated impact of their programmes, in many of the reporting of it's activities being 'less than completely transparent'?

I'm inclined to suggest that there's a third option we have, and it's one which I'm encouraged to see some providers of such funded enterprise support starting to take: funders of these programmes starting to openly recognise that the way they measure and consider the success of their intervention should consider a wider range of outcomes, rather than a simple binary measure as has been traditionally used. 

And a leading example of this is the Social Investment Business, whose reflections on 5 years of programmes supporting social enterprise access social investment is identifying this:

"Success should not be solely defined by growth or whether investment is raised. 

Instead, improving resilience should be the primary aim."

So perhaps we can all take encouragement from this and have a little more courage in future when reflecting on the benefits that come from engaging with offers of business support and how we report this, and be open to the good things that happen when we do?

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..?