4 years late, my first book finally has an index

A book that happened by accident - and what went wrong

Back in 2022 I wrote and self-published my first book.

I did it because other people said I should.

And I did it all by myself, because I wasn't in a position to be able to afford to buy in the book editing, design, etc services that would have helped me spot and avoid any 'rookie gaffes'.

And just like anyone else who's ever self-published their own book, it was only after it started to appear in other people's hands that hindsight arrived (late as always) to point out to me all of those 'rookie gaffes' that I'd somehow failed to spot, before pressing the button to release it onto the wild and onto bookshelves.

My mistakes didn't impact on its success - but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be fixed 

Encouragingly, none of these gaffes which loom large for me seemed to have been spotted by the hundreds of readers all around the world who've bought copies of it and passed them around; they've not stopped the book from winning an award; and they've not prevented interest in it's ideas continuing to catch interest (4 years on, and people are still buying copies of it - without paid for advertising most self-published books stop making sales within a year, but I've never paid for any adverts for it).

But one of those oversights has always niggled me - I omitted to include an index to help readers navigate it. And I have an idea that indexes are also important because they reveal some of the insights and sources of inspiration that the author has drawn on in drafting their book: 

A novel approach to getting the missing pages in readers' hands? 

So 4 years on from when it originally appeared, I've now gotten to creating an index for it - and I'm taking what I think may be a world first approach in how I'm sharing this:

Most people would probably assume that the easiest thing to do would be for me to update the book's manuscript and send this back to the printers. But to my thinking, there's 2 problems with this:

1) it means that everyone who's already bought a copy will miss out on these bonus pages;

2) it means that I'm retrospectively editing the history of the book so that how it's read in the future will be different to how it was read in the past. That somehow doesn't sit well with me: the book as it currently has been that way for the last 4 years in its original form. And its in this form that its generated so many unexpected outcomes that I'm working on a sequel volume to it. To change it now would mean that future readers have different experiences of it, creating inconsistencies in it's own story and history as a book.

So instead, I'm choosing to make these extra index pages freely available to download and share as a 'print and stick in the back of your copy' approach.

This feels far more in keeping with some of the book's ethos in encouraging people to take a more hands-on approach to trying new ways of doing things - and for anyone who's wondering if it might be worth spending a few pounds to get their own copy, it offers an insight into some of the different themes and references I drew on in writing it.

To get your copy of the missing index to 'Loving Your Doubt' -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NCYAIF6Fu63W2-USxP5tMtg_aM7w3hXA/view?usp=drive_link

And for those of you who grab these pages, I'd be interested to know:

1) if you're a previous reader, has it changed how you now think about the book?

2) if you haven't read the book yet, how far does getting it's index influence the likelihood you might get a copy in the future? 

Half way through the year; missed most of my goals so far; but still feeling ok

So we're officially now in June - half way through 2025, and only 6 months to Christmas! 

And tied to our collectively reaching this calendar milestone, seems to have been a recent small flurry of emails, posts on social media, etc from lots of people encouraging us to reflect on how well we've been smashing things for these first 6 months of 2025.

Except when I look back over my shoulder at what I've 'smashed' since January, I find myself at serious risk of giving up on the second half of this year:

- as part of marking the 20th anniversary of my business I wanted to publish my second book out (a retrospective of these first 2 decades). And although I've somehow managed to get the manuscript done, there's still the getting around to sorting out and completing final details that keeps eluding me...

- I wanted to get my website redesigned (I can't remember last time I did it); similarly as part of the porcelain anniversary this year. But I've not yet started that conversation with my web-hosters, SmartBear (but maybe by being so openly public it'll help me be more accountable?).

- I signed up to a few on-line/self-paced courses, which I've not even opened session 1 of yet (I'd hoped that paying actual cash for them would help me better follow through, but turns out not).

Now, none of these involve training to climb a mountain, staging a global conference, or creating a new on-line course, so what have I been playing at to let these things slip so much? After all, if you break them down, they could all have been easily be covered off if I'd devoted just 1 combined hour a week to them all.

Which brings me to the crux of this post - it's easy to set ourselves the goal, and equally easy to miss it (kudos to Douglas Adams for the sound effect of when we do), and when we see it happening we get disheartened, and so are more likely to leave things unfinished. Worse, we're probably also less likely to even try to set a future ambition as a result.

But here's the trick that I'm using to keep my motivation going: what the hell have I been doing in these last 6 months which which meant that I missed achieving these otherwise very achievable things?

Professionally - the start of this year saw the end of a lot of funded business support programmes of various types; and I found myself being approached by several to help them make sure that they'd hit all their targets, had all the audit paperwork trails in place, and enterprises being supported by them were in the best possible health as they cut the (financial and support) cord after March. Anyone who's managed funded projects knows how hectic the last few months of any can be. Multiple that by 3 to 4...

Personally - my unpaid caring roles were notably ramping up (and continue to). I'm not going to share details here, because the stories about the immediate family members I support are theirs to share, not mine. But for context, the government's (and most carer support services') support for carers is based on the assumption that you only care 1 for person. Recent research is starting to come out that's helping to highlight the different and more stressful experiences of the 'sandwich carer' (someone who cares for 2 people who span different generations). I'm in the next camp of being the sole unpaid carer for 3 people. Added into this, I'm self-employed (which means I'm not recognised in law as a carer), so I'm needing to spin the plates of supporting them, keep my business running to help keep the rent paid, and all with no support for myself in these roles...

So maybe missing my targets is OK - because I can see that a lot of good stuff has still been happening in wider communities, and for those closest to me. And that only happened because I didn't stick to my goals and pursue them above all else, (and there's still another 6 months for me to catch up with them, right?).

Just as I shared earlier this year about giving up on a dream that I'd been chasing for 20 years, maybe we should also hold the goals we set for ourselves more lightly too - and try to recognise that sometimes not achieving them can serve a greater purpose?    

after 20 years, it's time to go to the toilet

My business is 20 years old.

20 years! Only about 10% of enterprises that start-up get this far. 

To put this in perspective - when I started out, smartphones didn't exist! (it would be another year before the first tweet was posted; 2 years before the first iPhone was released on the world; and 3 years before Dropbox was launched. The typical best internet speed was 1Mb compared to around 900Mb today - we had to rely on using sharpened bones to scratch messages onto stones, and then hope people picked those stones up when we threw them at them).

Now, it turns out that the material associated with this particular anniversary is porcelain - something that most of us here in Britain associated with toilets.

But for me to have gotten this far, porcelain actually seems an apt simile for me:

• it has a high elasticity - to be able to keep up with all the changes in the world over the last 2 decades, the range of work I do, and types of organisations I support across all sectors, means I've had to be able to easily keep stretching myself.
• it has considerable strength and hardness - I've pushed hard on some things over the years, often to personal and professional criticism and opposition. This includes: (successfully) challenging CIC legislation; publishing a book that exposes most of the claims that people make about 'imposter syndrome' to be unproven and/or not based in any factual evidences; shining a brighter light on the 500,000+ unpaid carers who are discriminated against by all the bodies that are supposed to be supporting them because they're the only type of carer who aren't recognised in law for the sole reason that we're also self-employed; and calling out the apparent unprofessional practices of some social investors, which are damaging the wider sector; to name but a few.  
• it's translucent - I've openly published details of how I'm creating (or not) impacts of different types each year; and also been honest in my blog posts about when and where I've gotten things wrong.  
• and it has a high resistance to shock - if you've followed my blog over the years, you'll know that since becoming self-employed, my family has been made homeless twice; my father (who lives at the other end of the country) has almost died twice; I've navigated a difficult divorce; been investigated for tax fraud by HMRC three times (and cleared every time); had 'unannounced police visits' late at night; and so on. So much so, that the few people who know just how much 'shock' I've had to respond to and work through over these last 2 decades, are all amazed that I'm not only still in business, but not needed to be admitted anywhere...

So I'm actually pretty chuffed to be associated with porcelain.

But I also didn't want to miss the opportunity to try and mark this milestone - so, linking back to the toilet analogy, I've decided to twin my office toilet with a school in Uganda via https://toilettwinning.org/

25% of all human beings today don't have somewhere safe, clean, and hygienic to go to the toilet. Not only does this create all sorts of associated 'bio-hazards', it strips fellow people of their dignity. And if schools don't have toilets, then kids will find ways not to go there for those reasons, and as a result, lose the chance for education and so lose the future that they could/should have had, including the opportunity to break generational poverty.

So the next time you're paying a visit to the loo this year, please think of me and what you might be able to do to similarly 'be more porcelain'; and maybe if you might also be able find a similar excuse to twin your toilet with someone else's. 

something strange is happening to my blog

15 years ago, this blog emerged into the world.

And it wasn't because I wanted to start to share and broadcast all the various and ongoing stories, ideas, and researches I have and do with you all - but because Jason Elliot, who I knew at the time, thought I had a lot of important things that needed to be said and heard, and unbeknownst to me, he created it, forcing me to start a habit that's seen me post a new provocation or reflection roughly every 2 weeks since then.

Over that time, I've thought a lot about what the purpose and value of this blog is/should be, and noticed that the analytics have always remained pretty constant (and relatively 'modest' at 500-1000 views a month).

But in June of last year, that's suddenly changed.

I'm now starting to see up to 30,000 views a month! 

And despite what I hear from a lot of the 'gurus' out there about how you should do your social media, my approach to my blog hasn't changed over the last 15 years - I'm still posting about once every 2 weeks, and on the same sorts of themes I always have (see my labels list for a flavour).

Perhaps this is a sign that the age-old adage of the value and importance of persistence, perseverance, and patience are actually at play here - if you want to achieve success (however you might define it) you have to keep putting the effort in consistently over time. There are no easy quick win solutions, and perhaps what's happening with how my blog is now 'performing' is a sign of this?

why I don't go to awards ceremonies (despite winning them!)

I seem to be developing a reputation for winning awards (and as with most of my other reputations, is not something I purposefully set out to achieve...); but thought it might be time to reveal why I'm usually pictured in my office with all the paperweights and wall hangings that I seem to be amassing, rather than being suited up at official awards ceremonies:

1. they're usually in London or major cities that aren't that easy for me to get to (I live in the Pennines where the quality of views, walking, and beer are offset by years of under-investment in public transport links...)
2. Despite all my bravado and pomp, I think that my factory default setting is far more introvert than extrovert, so if it's all the same, you can post me the paperweight and I'll stay at home to watch TV with my girlfriend and a glass of wine;
3. But perhaps most importantly, not going in person creates an opportunity for me to be able to help other people get a 'leg up' as they're starting their careers and adventures - at the IOEE awards where I was named 'member of the year', I orchestrated it so Harsha Patel would be 'me' at the House of Commons to accept the accolade on my behalf: she was in the process of founding Doing Social at the time, so this meant she had opportunity to network with people and agencies more quickly and easily than she might have otherwise, meaning she could get her new venture 'out there' more powerfully than she might have otherwise. (She also looked better in a dress than I could ever hope to when on the podium giving the acceptance speech...)

So that's the reasoning behind why, in my business model, I seem to be once again going against conventional wisdom that says I should be revelling the in the validation that having awards bestowed on me offers..,

the tension of being British and winning business awards

Anyone who's snooped around my website, or followed some of my social media feeds, will likely have noticed that from time to time I'm fortunate to be recognised through receiving various national and international awards.

As a sole trader, such recognition is really valued: I don't have a line manager, team of colleagues, or regular gang of work mates whom I go out after work with that would otherwise help reassure me in those moments where I doubt myself, and wonder if I really am as good as I seem to be (hint: impostor syndrome is much more common amongst freelancers than people like to publicly admit). So such validations are genuinely welcome, and hopefully also an encouragement to other fellow freelancers and self-employed, that we really can achieve great things despite sometimes feeling like a flea when compared to the likes of larger firms and companies.

But recently I've started to notice that there seems to be something 'a bit British' about such business awards: whenever I learn I've been shortlisted for something, I'm keen to share that news as encouragement to others (and also reassurance to clients that they've commissioned the right consultant!). And if I'm fortunate enough to impress the judging panels sufficiently for them to put my name on the trophy, there's a similar post (although not always traditionally posed...) to share my excitement. And what I'm starting to notice is that there seems to be more interest and 'well done' messages when I share news of nominations and short-listings, than there is if I get to subsequently add another 'paperweight' to the trophy cabinet.

And I'm wondering if this is a reflection of our culture as Brits - try hard, strive to succeed, always root for the underdog (in this case, the sole trader who's up again international consultancy firms), remember it's more important to take part than to win, and don't get too cocky... 

But is that a bad thing? After all, it's complacency that is usually at the root of businesses that start to struggle and fail, and that's something I'm very keen to avoid (even though I've managed to remain self-employed for nearly 15 years now, I still fret about being able to find the next paying client or that my invoices will be able to be paid...)

So maybe we should focus more of the celebrations not on the winning of awards, but on those who get nominated and shortlisted (which is often no mean feat to achieve in itself). 
As for me? I'll still keep sharing news of awards nominations and additions to the mantelpiece, but won't be upset if you decide not to comment or like the posts I make when I share the news of it as encouragement to others.

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??

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...

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?

based on official statistics, my support to enterprise is far better than what the government pays for...

Business support comes in all sorts of forms, in all sorts of places, and from all sorts of people.

But the question that all entrepreneurs face when navigating the options out there, should be "is it any good?"

And there are all sorts of ways in which you can start to consider the quality, validity, appropriateness, (and even legality!) of the support you find and the advice you're offered through it:

- what qualifications does the person have? (but as I've shown before, a qualification is only an assurance that the person has been taught something, it's usually no indication of how knowledgeable or competent they actually are...)

- what recommendations have others made about them? (but again, I've evidenced how you can't trust any such endorsements a person may have received...)

So what's left? Well, how about statistics relating to performance? After all, it's how the success of any contract or project is usually considered, and the government's flagship business support programme, the growth hubs, are regularly applauded on the basis of these.

But the latest published self-congratulatory statistics about the performance of these growth hubs suggest that they may not actually be that great in practice, and when I compare my own performance against theirs, I seem to come out in a far better light:

Growth Hub - only 5% of all businesses who contact them actually get some 'real' (in person) support

Me - only about 5% of people who contact me by websites, social media, email, or phone don't get the opportunity to have a 'real' (in person) contact and support

Growth Hub - 87% customer satisfaction

Me - 98% customer satisfaction

Maybe this is why I was named as one of the UK's top10 business advisors by Government, and have a trophy cabinet of national and international awards, and the growth hubs don't?

Or maybe it's a case that there's are lies, damned lies, and statistics...?

and the least sustainable legal form of social enterprise is...

Anyone who's ever asked me for (professional) advice or guidance will know that I always try refer to what published research has to say about your question - I'd much rather offer option and direction on the basis of objective evidenced knowledge, rather than any personal preference or other bias.

And many know that I also seem to be able to make sense of all the options around legal forms for social enterprises here in the UK (at my last count, 14 options that fall under 7 regulatory bodies depending on which you pick) - something which has led me to be invited to develop and deliver training courses throughout the wider sector, be interviewed for webinars, and also offer some of my famous beer/cake mentoring in relation to as well...

Historically, when helping people navigate these choices as to their legal form, I've always referred to the legal powers of the respective regulators, what published research shows about their apparent success in being awarded grants, and their relative 'popularity' based on sector mapping studies.

But today I add another dimension to this referencing and research about social enterprise legal forms - how they affect your future financial performance!

Given the complexities around understanding and mapping the wider world of social enterprise, there's scant research or monitoring around how any enterprises' chosen legal form may impact on its future potential for success in financial terms - and while there are lots of other contributory factors which means that we can never look at the legal form as the sole indicator of this performance outcome, I felt it might be useful to take an initial look at what the studies that are starting to be published might be suggesting.

To this end, I'm indebted to Power to Change's research team, who have started to track and publish bench-marking data for social and community enterprises around a number of themes, but also a couple of other bodies too. There's not many sector mapping studies that look at the performance of an enterprise correlated to its legal form, but the initial ones I've been able to draw on are:

• Follow the Money (2017), Power to Change
• CIC 10 year survey (2016), CIC Association
• Open source economic data set (2017), Co-operatives UK
• Charity Register Statistics (2017), Charity Commission

And yes, the data from these will be subjective - for example, Power to Change will only be reporting on data from social/community enterprises that it has directly engaged with and supported; but as I said already, this is a first go at seeing what might be gleaned and identified from cross-referencing what these studies and mappings appear to be finding.

And what they seem to show is:

1. Charities are consistently the best performing legal structures with average turnovers having the least variance of all legal forms between the different studies (£450k - £650k); they also seem to generate the highest profit ratios from trading activities (averaging 11%)
2. Companies limited by guarantee have the lowest reliance on grant funding (averaging 48%), but also a lower profit ratio of 4% of income
3. Co-op Societies seem to struggle to generate profits (2% of turnover), but in having the largest average turnover of all the legal forms (£7.2m), this equates to far larger cash amounts than the other options do

The biggest surprises though, come in relation to CICs - the Power to Change study shows them to have an average turnover of nearly £2m, but the CIC Associations own mapping found the vast majority generate less than £10,000 a year. This clearly shows that there's HUGE variances between individual CICs that are trading: there are a few 'unicorns' out there, but most are 'zombies'. 

And I use the phrase 'trading' loosely, as these various studies also highlight that CICs are the most grant reliant and dependant of all the legal forms (58% of all income is grants - for comparison, it's 53% for charities; and grants are used as the main route by the majority of CICs for raising any investment). Worryingly, they are also the only legal form whose average enterprise seems to be generating a loss - Power to Change's mapping found that the average CIC makes a loss every year of -1.5% against its income...

I've blogged before about how the 'honeymoon' for CICs may be waning, so does this add further weight to my concerns about the viability of this legal form to best enable social entrepreneurs to achieve their vision? (especially when 1/3 of all CICs also report that this legal form has been a hindrance to them doing so...).

I don't know, and I don't think that this quick snapshot across a handful of others' published data can offer any real answers. But what it hopefully does is to help further add to our knowledge about the best routes through which social enterprises can best realise and fulfil their potential. Hopefully it will also generate more and more useful questions for those undertaking future studies into this wider sector.

"ain't nothing like a Dame", forgotten legacies, and growing lettuces in space... (the future of the co-op movement from a regional perspective)

I was recently invited back to my old stomping ground of Cambridge to speak at the Regional Co-op Council's annual conference - as some may know, I spent several years turning around the fortunes a local co-op and social enterprise development agency there, and somehow initiating some ideas that have since become national flagships...

And the invitation was too tempting to pass on: in 1997, The East of England was the first in the country to form a regional co-op forum (which became the regional Co-ops Council model today), and in doing so inspired every other region in the UK to not only form a corresponding Council model, but also informed every region to then go on to create a wider regional social enterprise partnership too! (and I was involved in the forming of both this first regional council, and the subsequent first regional social enterprise partnership too, so nice to go back and see how it was getting on)

The East of England was also the first to create a 10 year strategy for shaping the future of the co-operative movement from a regional perspective (which I still have a copy of!, although sadly just about everyone at the Coops East conference seemed to be unaware of just how influential they've been in shaping the wider movement and beyond through these things in its history...).

Therefore being able to return to remind them of their history and legacy seemed an important thing to do in encouraging the next wave of the 'co-operative revolution'.

(and it was also personally encouraging for me to be able to see some people I originally got to know 15 years ago still active and impacting the world through their roles - Austen and Sally: yes, that's you I'm referring to!)

While the day itself may have seemed to have had too many speakers for some people's comfort (8 main presentations, 2 facilitated round table planning activities, and a break for lunch - and all in the space of about 5 hours), my impression is that many also felt that they wanted more... and my overriding impression was that rather than blinding people with stats and policy headlines, all of the speakers more appropriately drew on stories and histories of their respective co-ops - its stories that capture our interest and imagination much more powerfully, and make it easier to share these ideas with other people, than any set of quantitative data and mapping reports ever can.

So to try and summarise what impressed upon me most from the day means I'll omit some things that others felt were the highlights for them, or focus on some aspects that others felt were more of an irrelevance. But that's part of the joy of blogging - encouraging you to subsequently read others' write ups and form your own view, and a reflection of the diversity of the co-operative movement itself. However, for me the 'highlights' I'd like to share are as follows:

1. Co-ops were highlighted at being at the forefront of the next agricultural revolution with the workers co-op, Delta T Devices, sharing how their equipment is helping to grow lettuces on the international space station
2. Dame Pauline Green passionately argued how co-ops have become the UK's greatest ever export, revealed how she's now a good mate of the Pope, and had people highlight that a musical about her work for the movement is already well know - "There is nothing like a Dame" from South Pacific
3. Tweets that people were making on the day drew interest in what Coops East were doing from the co-operative movement internationally
4. It's impossible for nearly any co-operative to fully cover all of the impact and ways in which they are contributing to making the world a better place in only 9 minutes
5. While some co-ops may be accused of having too many aims for their own good, and people encourage them to therefore reduce them in number; if you were a parent with 'too many children', how could you choose which of them to give up?
6. People's ideas for what a 'paradise region' might look like if the East of England were to be transformed by the co-op sector struck me as being reminiscent of the role that Co-op societies held in their communities at the start of the 20th century (community social events, everyone being aware about what co-ops are and using them as their preferred suppliers and shops, schools being explicitly linked with coops and teaching children about them, local businesses being encouraged and supported by them...)
7. Some co-ops present (and who spoke) seemed unaware of the national programmes and influence they'd created over the years until I referred to some of these during the Q&A panels
8. I also found myself being volunteered to chair the conference in lieu of my father who was too unwell to do so, and so naturally took the opportunity to do some table-top dancing as part of the official proceedings...

I think my overriding takeaway from the day was that as a movement we have a legacy (and future) that is far more impressive and powerful than most realise, but we risk losing it all if we forget our history and don't keep regularly sharing and reminding ourselves of our stories.

But the whole day was also tweeted and instagrammed about by various other people there - just check out the day's hashtag to see other's pictures and stories via #acoopregion; and Coops East have also uploaded all of the speakers notes and presentations to their website: http://www.cooperatives-east.coop/events/acooperativeregion/

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.