"I didn't expect there'd be so much blood..."

I was recently invited to be the 'headline act' at the monthly Facilitators cafe - a gathering of people with an interest in facilitation to hang out with their peers, reflect on practices, tools, experiences, etc.

And I took the opportunity to encourage people to do some 'stick poking' at the worlds of psychometric tools and profiling - things like Myers Briggs, Belbin Team Roles, DISC profiles, etc, which are designed to tell us/others about how we think and behave as human beings (and are usually favoured by lots of HR recruitment teams, even though they weren't originally designed for this purpose...).

My reason for this was pretty much based on the approach I always take with tools and frameworks that are presented to us as the next 'new brilliant thing' - I have an idea that all too often we rush to adopt and start to use them, without first sense checking how safe they may be, what their origin stories are, and if they do actually live up to all the hype around them (based on evidence, research, and experience).

Within the context of the time available (just under an hour, and which also had to include time for people to show off their Christmas jumpers - it was December, after all!), I suggested we create spaces (aka breakout rooms, as the cafe's a virtual one in zoom) for people to reflect on how they'd experienced these types of tools in the context of facilitating different types of groups.

Encouragingly, the consensus that emerged is broadly similar to my own (which is based on looking at different published researches into efficacy, accuracy, and safety of different psychometric frameworks...):

- "they're a tool, not a rule". We shouldn't feel obliged to be a slave to their process, or bound by what they 'score', but rather treat them flexibly, and as circumstances may otherwise dictate; 

- they're designed for individuals to reflect on themselves in a controlled environment, rather than an open facilitated session, so can't and shouldn't be used as they're designed to be. To do so would require a lot of time (which reduces the ability of the group to otherwise progress against the aims of the wider session), and increases the risk of harm and distress amongst individuals within the group in doing then so openly and publicly;

- they should be used 'lightly', with lots of 'safety rails' put in place: as one fellow facilitator shared, when recounting their use of a psychometric with a group as part of a session they facilitated: "I didn't expect there'd be so much blood...";

- it's easy to get caught in a "model muddle": with so many different frameworks out there, and each claiming to be the best, how can we be sure we're playing with the right ones?

Ultimately, we all agreed that tools like these, as with any others, are only helpful to us as facilitators if they can answer the "...so what?" question. If they don't quickly, easily, and safely help to generate insights or outputs which directly contribute to achieving a session's aims, then they're probably going to be a distraction at best.

And intriguingly, one of the cafe patrons shared how they'd taken some of the principles and ideas around psychometrics and adapted these: early on any any session, they now share a short story. Depending on how people react to different parts of that story, or how they respond to it overall, gives that facilitator a working model for how they understand each person is likely to subsequently react to different prompts or stage and elements in the session plan.

Oh, and I also got to 'show off' one of the more playful approaches I use when working with a group that's been established for a while already, and people are used to working together: Ulla Zang, as a relatively safe prompt to help people reflect on, and refresh, how well they really think they know and perceive each other.     

the one where other people say what I did this year

It's that time of year when we're all encouraged to reminisce as business owners, freelancers, and entrepreneurs.

And I've decided to 'play along' too. But rather than doing what most others seem to be (a mixture of the person's reflective anecdotes, dream client contracts won, things that felt the scariest or created the biggest 'splash' for them), I wanted to try and take a slightly more 'scientific' and experimental approach (after all, I do encourage people to play at being 'mad scientists' from time to time...). 

I've instead decided to see what might be the things other people noticed about what I was up to in the year, that they felt were most noteworthy, based on the analytics across most of my social media channels, and awards I've been feted with. 

And the results are... 

Caring about unpaid caring 

Sharing stories about my 'extra curricular' efforts to get better recognition for unpaid carers who are also self-employed, freelance, or small business owners (we're the only type of carer who isn't recognised in law, and therefore have no rights or support services designed for our needs, as carers in other circumstances do), drew the most consistent interest of all the things I talked about that I've been involved in this year.

And because of this, I've had opportunity to influence a national think tank's policy research, who have also subsequently openly published their own position paper on this (hat tip to ipse!); been profiled by a national family support charity (another hat tip to Working Families!); and been invited by the Department for Business and Trade to be part of focus groups they're convening to better understand the experiences of unpaid carers, and their employers, in different employment contexts and environments.

Continuing to feel like imposters

My book, and guesting on others' podcasts etc, about why we should rethink the whole concept of 'imposter syndrome' (on the basis that various published scientific research and study papers suggest that it isn't at all what most people say and think it is), also continues to draw ongoing interest.

Challenging what people think social enterprise is (and should be) about

And my ongoing reflections about what emerging data sets and researches about what the future of the social enterprise sector might look like and act, (and the evolving nature of the types of organisations that make it up), also proved popular (including my extolling the virtues of McDonalds, as an inspiring example that social enterprises should seek to imitate!)

 

Going out of my way to make trouble/try and help

Although my unpaid caring responsibilities now mean that I'm not able to offer as much pro bono, or get involved with events and initiatives as much as I could and did in previous years, I've continued to try and spot and create ways in which I can use my business and voice to influence and encourage others, so that they in turn can amplify this through other channels.

This year, theRSA offered me a Life Fellowship, in recognition of my 'extra curricular' efforts to positively influence the wider ecosystems of policy makers, investors, and infrastructure bodies, that support enterprises of all types; and the Community Foundation for Calderdale recognised me as an "outstanding individual" in recognition for how I've stretched the way my business works to maximise the potential impacts and benefits it can create for the wider local community and economy in contributing to them becoming more resilient and inclusive.

But that's what I think I'm aware of, on the basis of the points in my year that the internet tells me that I've caught the most interest and imagination of others, because of what I was (trying to) do to at the time.

What's been the biggest thing I've done this year, that meant you were glad that I was part of yours?

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?

Maslow's doughnut

A lot of people have probably heard of 'Maslow's hierarchy' - it's based on the idea that as human beings, we have different 'levels' of need, and until we can satisfy one, we can't progress to the other (i.e. if we're homeless, it's hard to commit to a course of learning or securing a job).

In recent years, there's also been the emergence of 'donut economics' - the idea that because we live in a closed ecosystem (aka a planet revolving around the sun, and all we've got is what's already on it), we need to try and balance how we consume with how we live, and the donut creates a visual representation of this:

But I've been thinking recently about where these 2 models might/can/should overlap with each other - Maslow designed his model on the assumption that we should all be encouraging ourselves and each other us to be striving to reach the top of the pyramid, and that there would always be enough resources available for everyone to do this in ways that they determined were right for them. But maybe we need to be slightly more nuanced in this 'race to the top'? - not everything that's good for us is good for everyone else.

Could encouraging ourselves to work out what our 'personal doughnut' should be, and then thinking about where we are/want to be (in Maslows' hierarchy) allow us to more sustainably (and so better) achieve and set our personal ambitions, through recognising and understanding how our ambitions and choices affect others, and theirs, us?

(To work out your personal doughnut = https://doughnuteconomics.org/tools-and-stories/118)

Could this 'Maslow doughnut' be a better model for how we think about our personal development in the 21st century?

does freelancing make you a better lifelong learner?

We're currently in the middle(ish) of this year's Lifelong Learning Week - an annual campaign to highlight the importance of continuing to exercise our 'little grey cells' after our school years, and shine a light on the various benefits that doing so creates for us personally, those around us, and the wider communities and worlds we're part of.

As a freelancer/self-employed, I've always prioritised maintaining an ongoing and active learning mindset:

• I set targets for how much of my turnover I try and spend on courses, journals, and events;
• I keep a rolling monthly log of all my formal CPD activities, to help reflect on what I've taken from them, and how they've contributed to how I've challenged/changed my thinking and practices;
• I hold memberships of bodies like the Workers Educational Association and the Co-op College, as a show of solidarity with providers of lifelong learning;
• and more...

But I was struck this year that only 52% of us 'adults' have engaged in any type of recognised learning activity in the last 3 years, and that there are growing inequalities in the opportunities and abilities for some of us to even have the option and opportunity to engage in learning activities : https://learningandwork.org.uk/resources/research-and-reports/adult-participation-in-learning-survey-2024/

Reflecting on my own 'learning habits', and hearing about those of fellow freelancer and self-employed types through different communities I'm part of (such as Being Freelance, ipse, FSB, etc) makes me realise that perhaps there's something about working in this way which helps to address some of these barriers and inequalities that we all face when it comes to lifelong learning.
Maybe because we recognise the importance of always investing in our skills and knowledge (we'd quickly become obsolete and lose work if we didn't!), and because of this, more easily 'catch the learning bug'?

And if so, should we make this part of how we celebrate and evidence just how important we are to the wider economy and communities, as another example of how underrated and undervalued we are to policy makers and politicians? 

why cowbells, 3-year olds, and punching bags are a better way to create social enterprise policy

"We need to get more experimental with creating national policy" - is the encouraging takeaway I took from my recently being part of the global Social Enterprise World Forum Policy Forum event.

Showcasing a range of insights and experiences from around the world, the Forum offered a rare opportunity for people within all parts of the wider social enterprise ecosystem (from start-up social entrepreneurs, to global policy managers in the UN), who wouldn't normally be able to meet each other to question, challenge, encourage, and inspire in ways that don't usually happen.

It was also far from what some might have expected in terms of how research was shared, ideas provoked, and people engaged, as the title of this blog post suggests!

Listening to the debates; reflecting with others in the speed networking slots; (and yes, for those of you who know me, I was also doing lots in the chats of each session I joined); it struck me that a lot of policy we've seen in the UK over the last 20-30 may actually not have been that great for the impacts they've created.

Sharing stories through the conversations made me realise/re-enforced my ideas that:

- the reason we have an apparent glut of social investment that most lenders are struggling to 'get out', is because it was a government policy agenda that said it would be a 'magic bullet' that the sector needed (but with little research or evidence to substantiate this)?

- it was also government policy that gave us the Community Interest Company (CIC), at a time when it admitted that the wider sector had no stated need or appetite for any new legal forms. It also created them in a way that simply 're-badged' various existing company features as something 'new and unique'. Perhaps this the is reason why CICs seem to have always struggled to have more longevity than regular private businesses, and are usually more reliant on grants than charities are?

- and those early policy agendas also drove the impetus for social enterprises to be delivering public sector contracts: yet the researches that have been published in subsequent years point to most social enterprises not using this as a mainstay of how they trade, and for those that do, they often do so at a trading loss?

But despite this, having had separate policies as we have, has meant the profile and awareness of the concept of social enterprise is higher than it might have otherwise been.

However... I was also reminded as I traded stories with others in the Forum, that most of the research about the specific needs of social enterprises shows that they have more in common with private businesses than not - and in the very early days of the explosion of interest and activity around social enterprise (at the turn of the millennium), it was 'regular' business support bodies and services, and the policies that informed them, that sought to integrate the majority of support for this 'new' sector.

There was subsequently a 'parting', but now, 20-ish years on, I'm starting to see some signs that there's thought and interest in exploring how they might be re-integrated (through the likes of Growth Hubs, Shared Prosperity Fund programmes, etc). 

And perhaps this emerging possible refocussing of policy is coming about because we've now had sufficient time to understand the impact of these early policies? As one of the key speakers suggested, "it can take at least 5-10 years to understand the impact and effects of a policy, so we need to treat them as more experimental". In those early days of social enterprise, there was scant data to base policies on, in comparison to what we now know and understand - so maybe policy makers need to start being braver in resetting the paradigms that they're working with? 

However, creating such a shift will take time and effort - and for those making the policies, represents a scaring foraying into new unknowns.

Maybe the best way we can be part of bringing this change about, was an idea shared that social enterprises might best create influence amongst policy makers by 'stealth': offering and asking to engage in staff secondment schemes, so that those informing the design of future infrastructure get first-hand experience of the realities of how it would be likely to be actually experienced by those it's intended to benefit. This may not be the usual 'showy' way that we're encouraged to try and lobby and advocate (with huge petitions, and PR stunts), but reminds us that everyone in the wider (eco)systems are ultimately human beings, and we can best get things done by engaging and building relationships with each other as such.

For more reflections on the Forum, see - https://sewfonline.com/empowering-rural-communities-and-youth-sewf-policy-forum-highlights/ 

I'm lovin' it (but I'm not sure I should?)

"What's your motivation for doing this?" is a key question I ask new and emerging social enterprises and social entrepreneurs, in start-up programmes for them that I'm invited to support from time to time.

And while everyone always talks about impact in some way, there will always be some who reply that it's because as a social enterprise they can create more impact than a private business can. And for those people, I set a challenge, that (so far) no-one has ever been able to beat:

"Go and read up on McDonald's UK's impact - and then come back and tell me how you're not ashamed when you compare yourself to them as a private, for-profit, business."

In the 20 years of my setting this challenge, no-one has ever come back to me.

That's because McDonalds UK has done a pretty good job of:

• examining how they've designed their supply chain and invested in their suppliers; 
• thought about the behaviours of their customers and staff at a local level in how they can be the best 'corporate neighbour'; 
• as an employer, designed processes and systems which (amongst other things) mean they regularly win awards as one of the best large employers to work for, and also won the contract to train all of the changemaker volunteers at the last London Olympics (to the shock of all volunteering support and training bodies); 
• have a strong stance on animal welfare; 
• model a lot of good and best practice in how they're approaching how they manage their impact on the natural environment; 
• undertake national programmes to encourage childhood literacy; 
• are the biggest non-charitable supporter of community sports; 
• and the list goes on...

But they don't seem to use any of the above as part of their core marketing messages or reasons why we should eat with them (in contrast to the cause-relating-marketing messaging of most organisations in the social economy) - they're simply doing these things because they recognise that there's a strong business case for them to, other than what their customers seem to prioritise in their buying decisions.

But why am I sharing this here, now, if I've been apparently so enthralled by this fast food chain for so long?

Well, they've recently published what I think may be the first impact report that takes a 50-year perspective (organisations usually only publish their impact reports based on the last year, or a specific funded project) -   

https://www.mcdonalds.com/content/dam/sites/uk/nfl/pdf/uploads/mcdonalds-at-50-social-and-economic-impact-report.pdf  

(They've also been quietly producing annual impact reports since 2016 on all aspects of their business model, and the impacts they're creating -

https://corporate.mcdonalds.com/corpmcd/our-purpose-and-impact/impact-strategy-and-reporting/performance-reports.html)

Which can't help me start to wonder - as well as setting a quite high bar on what impact and good it's possible to create within a trading model that isn't reliant on grant income or support (as many social enterprises are), is McDonalds now shaming the social economy further by how its approaching understanding its impact from such a 'whole life' perspective?

However, perhaps I should share a slight possible bias about my apparent extolling of the Golden Arches in this post - although I think there's better tasting burgers to be had elsewhere, and will always prioritise eating out in locally owned independent cafes and restaurants when I can, we do share the same landmark birthday. 

And as an unpaid carer who's also self-employed, it was in one of their restaurants that I chose to (belatedly) celebrate mine with them, by treating myself to their birthday 'cake'.