It's great to be proved wrong (really!)

I offer support to social enterprises through a variety of means – one of which is as a mentor through the Unltd Connect programme.

Recently I was 'paired' with One&Other, a new media enterprise in York that’s seeking to use news channels and digital publishing to share good news and build communities rather than simply 'telling tales' to make money.

They've already attracted a lot of initial interest from within this industry, and one of the topics that I wanted to explore with them (as well as everything on their 'wish list') was that of their legal form – they incorporated as a CIC and I wanted to explore with them why they'd chosen this structure given my experience of this form: briefly, I'm skeptical of the tangible benefits that being a CIC might offer based on published research and my own experiences, but am always open to being proved wrong about that.

I think it’s important that I remain open in this way, seeking opportunities to be proved wrong in my understanding and stance on all sorts of issues, because if I don't I risk become an entrenched cynic and it also offers me new opportunities to further enhance my own knowledge which can surely only be a good thing for everyone?

Anyway – their experience of being a CIC is fantastic! It's allowing them to achieve one of their principle aims: creating opportunities and generating invitations for them to explain and explore what social enterprise is within an industry that's largely unaware of it and the potential it can offer, because when they meet people as say 'we're a CIC' people are invariably asking 'what's that then?'

So thank you One&Other for proving me wrong – I hope to be able to return the favour someday ;-)

Charities now being created at more than 1 every hour!

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

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

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

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

All things to all people (why co-ops will never succeed in changing the world)

Indulging myself in some co-op history recently, I found myself reading an article in the Society of Co-op Studies' Journal from 1981 by Harold Campbell titled 'Unity amongst co-operatives'.

Indulging myself in some co-op history recently, I found myself reading an article in the Society of Co-op Studies' Journal from 1981 by Harold Campbell titled 'Unity amongst co-operatives'.

In it, Harold showed the plurality of the co-op model and movement in how it's defining values and principles were identified with by all manner of political bodies, philosophies and movements:

- to socialists, co-ops offer social ownership and democratic control

- to conservatives, co-op offer an expression of self-reliance and self-help

- to liberals, co-ops offer a grass roots democracy

- and so on...

But I wonder if this apparent ability of co-ops to be identifiable with by everyone is also the reason why the co-operative movement will always struggle to realise its full [political] potential in reshaping the economy and society as whole? The movement is so large and multifaceted in that people see in those things that they hold to be most important to themselves only, and in doing so, re-enforce their prejudices about other political philosophies who also see the same movement as being entirely sympathetic to them.

It's a bit like the story of 3 blind men who, upon encountering an elephant for the first time all believe its something completely different to each others' perception of it because they only experience one part of it in isolation from the wider whole, and in doing so, all miss the bigger picture.

Perhaps we therefore need to agree a simpler strategy for the propagation and propaganda of the co-op movement and its ideals – we need to all agree on a single, over-riding issue or message about what co-ops are about, and then encourage all co-operatives to consistently relay this to their respective audiences. Maybe then, when everyone outside of the movement agrees on what co-ops are about on the terms of the co-op movement (rather than their own), we can get on with the more important business of fixing the world.

Why I don't do conferences (usually...)

I find myself increasingly uninterested in attending conferences (unless invited to attend in the guise of a speaker), and it’s not because of the content, materials or speakers that's on offer (although that last one on that list is sometimes debatable...); no – the reason I don't really do conferences is because of me.

Over the years I've come to better understand myself – what excites me, how my brain ticks, and so on; and what I've come to realise is that I don't learn well by sitting in a room or up to 2 hours at a time listening to people talk at me. I get bored (maybe that's why I struggled so much at school, but went on to gain a raft of post-graduate qualifications?), and as a small business having the time of my life, I can't justify investing my time in something that generates little (if any) immediate and tangible benefit for me.

But don't fret, I still reflect on my knowledge and seek to further build upon my skills, it’s just that for me its best done in other ways: journals, podcasts, action learning and peer reflection (the latter being best done when staged in a pub!) In fact I value my ongoing learning and development so much that I report on how much I 'do it' as part of my annual social impact/accounts.

So, chances are you won't see me at the conferences that you might expect me to be hanging out at (unless I'm on the speakers list), but that's not to say that I've become arrogant and don't think there's anything more for me to learn – it’s just that I learn better in other ways...

but if you find that you just can't get out of going to them, this piece from Blue Avocado might offer a life-line...

How many people does it take to adjust a PC monitor?

OK, so this post is based on the running gag of changing light bulbs, but a Health and Safety (H&S) notice I recently read at a government building really does stagger belief and illustrates not only how bonkers H&S can get, but also how government really is wasting money.

So - the answer? By my reckoning, at least 8 people are needed in this government establishment to adjust a PC monitor.

And the reason for this is the following policy procedure that staff should follow if they feel that their workstation screen needs adjustment:

1) request an assessment from the Health & Safety office (1 admin person to take the call, 1 assessor to come out)

2) If there is found to be a need, this is reviewed by Occupational Health (1 admin person to take the call, 1 assessor to come out)

3) A request for the adjustment is then submitted by your line manager (1 person) to the IT department (1 admin person to take the call, 1 technician to come out)

4) The diversity officer should also be informed (1 officer to file a report)

Is it any wonder then why governments take so long to do anything and it costs us so much for them to do it when they do?

What Web 2.0 can learn from medieval co-ops

There seems to be an ongoing proliferation of e-commerce sites offering bulk-purchasing services (and savings) to small businesses and individuals (groupon, anyone?) – made possible thanks to the blessing that is the internet and social media (I thought I'd try one out – co-deal).

But do we really need so many? There are various trade bodies that already exist that have negotiated discounts on core services for their members (the Institute of Consulting can get you cheaper professional indemnity insurance, Co-operativesUK can get you free banking, and so so) – a model which is largely based on the old Medieval Guilds (an early co-op model).

And in the 1970s there was a surge of interest in people forming food buying groups, from which many worker co-ops were 'birthed' – a trend that's captured peoples' imagination again today.

Ultimately, all these bulk purchasing schemes (whether they be for small businesses like me, or householders – also like me!) are based on a co-op model and exhibit co-op values – empowering individuals to achieve together what they could not alone.

But the co-op model fell out of fashion during the 1970s and 1980s and is only really just starting to come back into mainstream society's consciousness – so I hope that all these new and emerging group buying schemes recognise that they're using a co-op model and look to this proud and historical movement for guidance in building new sustainable businesses that offer economic benefit to their members and users.

a birthday cake for one...

This year, I shall be mostly spending my birthday on a train - travelling to a client to support them resolve some partnership issues. I'll get to see my 2 boys for a few minutes in the morning (when they're usually only interested in breakfast and morning TV than anything else).

So maybe I'll be celebrating over the weekend instead? No. I'll be travelling back from working with an emerging co-operative enterprise on friday evening, and then over the rest of the weekend my wife is running market stalls and I'll be pitching in with our adopted town of Todmorden's launch of a new pilgrimage.


Why am I sharing this? Well, it's not to elicity sympathy (as I'm OK with it), but as a moral encouragement to everyone else who finds themselves in a similar time of their lives. The world doesn't owe us anything and we're not automatically entitled to big parties and celebrations (as much as we might wish otherwise...)

So, as the poet Andrew Marvell put it "take your pleasures where you can", 'cos the harsh reality of the world means that you can't always indulge yourself in things you want. And that's a hard truth which many people don't want to accept - but maybe if they did, then we'd all get along a lot easier...