Above all, to have ‘high‑tech’ entrepreneurship alone without its being embedded in a broad entrepreneurial economy of ‘no‑tech’, ‘low‑tech’, and ‘middle‑tech’, is like having a mountaintop without the mountain.
Even high-tech people in such a situation will not take jobs in new, risky, high‑tech ventures. They will prefer the security of a job in the large, established, ‘safe’ company or in a government agency.
Of course, high‑tech ventures need a great many people who are not themselves high‑tech: accountants, salespeople, managers, and so on.
In an economy that spurns entrepreneurship and innovation except for that tiny extravaganza, the ‘glamorous high tech venture’, those people will keep an looking for jobs and career opportunities where society and economy (i.e., their classmates, their parents, and their teachers) encourage them to look: in the large, ‘safe’ established institution.
Neither will distributors be willing to take on the products of the new venture, nor are investors willing to back it.
Peter Drucker – What Will Not Work
Precautions for All Governments – John McKnight
In John McKnight’s ‘Building Communities from the Inside Out’ is a chapter on ‘Providing support for asset based development: Policies and Guidelines’. John may not be the greatest crafter of a punchy headline on the planet, but he does understand the process of community development – and the content of this section is right on the money.
In a section called ‘Precautions for all Governments’ he points out the problems that governments and other institutions of the state have in working with what are often small, simple and informal community development groups. He suggests that often, in trying to play its role, government ends up ‘dominating, distorting and demeaning’ the work of local people. McKnight offers a few principles that can help government officials (council officers, RDA employees etc) to avoid this ‘overbearing propensity’.
To paraphrase:
- Remember that government workers and programmes are public servants. A servant supports and does not control. A servant never suggests that an employee might ‘participate’ in the servants’ work. The servant finds how best to serve the employer.
- Understand the limits to government. If it replaces the work of citizens and their associations it will not create a healthy society – but a dependent one. The community will look to government to solve local problems and government will be unable to fulfil this role. Local problems will worsen. ‘Secure, wise and just communities are created by citizens and their associations and enterprises, supported by governments making useful investments in local assets’.
- Let local people who do the work take the credit. Don’t send the mayor to ‘cut the ribbon’. Let those that did the work have the glory. Send the mayor to thank them.
- Don’t replace local associations and institutions with new systems and agencies. ‘One of the most significant causes of weakened local citizen initiatives, associational work and institutional capacity has been the introduction of new government sponsored structures and organisations. As new organisations appear in the neighbourhood with impressive buildings or offices, lots of money and well paid outside professionals (sounds familiar?) they unintentionally but necessarily replace some of the power, authority and legitimacy of local groups. Although they assert that they are there to strengthen community, they are likely to replace community initiatives.’
- Government representatives should ask “What do you local people think we should do to support you?” rather than “We have this new programme we are bringing to your community.”
- Ones size does not fit all. Characteristics of local projects are diversity, proliferation and informality. Government and bureaucracy however is more often characterised by uniformity, standardisation and formality. They usually seek to develop processes and systems that will ‘fit all’. This approach is structurally and culturally ‘at odds’ with creative local initiatives that are vital to community regeneration.
One of the challenges that I believe government (local, regional and national) and its agencies has to address is how best do we make our expertise and professional ‘knowhow’ available to community groups? Instead they appear to be have succeeded in co-opting the expertise and knowhow of community groups to deliver governments’ policies programmes and targets on dependent and disempowered communities.
Time for a change methinks.
Social Participation and Enterprise
One of the key themes explored at the recent Future Gov Work Better Together event was the promise that ‘social participation gives people the power to self-actualise’.
I am sure it does.
However ‘social participation’ has also been the technology of choice for us human beings to make progress at all stages of Maslow’s Hierarchy – not just at the ‘self-actualising’ peak. Competence in social participation (or what de Tocqueville called ‘association’) and the ability to negotiate self interest through effective collaboration is one of the critical enablers in community and personal development.
Whether it is learning to share a cave (or a housing estate) to meet needs for shelter and warmth, putting together a team to start a new business venture, or pursuing self actualisation, effective ‘social participation’ is the key.
The challenge facing us here is promoting social participation, collaboration, association. Not technology. In very few of the communities where I work is the REAL barrier to progress access to a networking site or high speed internet access (although these are cited usually after lack of money and skills).
It is often a lack of understanding about how collective self interests can best be met through negotiation and association. About the need to see what can be contributed rather than taken. About the need to build real trust rather than uncomfortable bureaucratic ‘compacts’.
The other barrier to social participation in the real world is an almost complete loss of belief that progress IS possible – manifesting itself in apathy and resignation. A belief that perhaps this is as good as it gets – and, if it is going to get any better, those bloody politicians had better get their fingers out, because I AM POWERLESS.
So IF we are serious about trying to shift the enterprise culture of a community we need to be in the game of building social capital, self belief and personal responsibility for making things happen.
Enterprise Coaching is Being Broken
I get so frustrated when I see a 4 day enterprise coaching course being commissioned that pays little or no attention to what makes the role of the enterprise coach different from the business adviser.
I witnessed one recently, delivered by an Enterprise Agency (so they MUST know what they are talking about) that started with a half day on ‘Building empathy and rapport’ (this should have been subtitled ‘Using psychological flannel to manipulate your client’) before going on for a full three days about ‘business planning’, ‘marketing’ and ‘finance’. It even included a ‘very useful’ glossary of financial terms that every enterprise coach should know (things like profit, loss, break-even and cash flow). Essentially it was a four day course of basic business advice re-branded ‘Enterprise Coaching’. SFEDI accredited which is handy, except as far as I know SFEDI have yet to do develop any standards for Enterprise Coaches (which makes me wonder how they can accredit the course)!
- The challenge facing the enterprise coach is NOT to provide business advice to people living in areas of deprivation.
- It is NOT to help people who want to start a business to develop viable business plans.
- It is not to sell them places on workshops or training programmes – even if this is what mis-guided funders incentivise them to do.
It IS to:
- make connections in communities
- become trusted
- have structured conversations that help people to uncover their aspiration and to get back in touch with their potential,
- help people assess their options and choices and make decisions that are most likely to help them make progress with their lives.
- to engage with pre-contemplators and to help them contemplate. It is to help contemplators to prepare for change and to ensure that they can access relevant, high quality and personalised specialist services.
Enterprise coaches develop people.
They unstick people.
They help people to grasp the possibility and practicalities of progress.
They help people to get in touch which their enteprising soul.
They build social capital, they put people in touch with fellow travellers and with sources of specialist support.
They work on shaping social contexts to make them more supportive of enteprise.
Some of the people they work with will go on to develop businesses. Others will go back into education and skills, some will remain as before.
After a relationship with a skilled and powerful enterprise coach each one of them will have been challenged to think about what they want to get from life and how they are going to get it.
They may not have had ‘Break-even’ explained.
The concept of enterprise coaching is being broken.
It is being broken by bureaucrats who believe that the best way to increase start up rates is to put watered down business advisers into deprived communities to push self employment and entrepreneurship.
It is being broken because the enterprise industry is exploiting an opportunity to re-package ‘bog standard’ business advice under another name and sell it to unsuspecting and ill-informed regeneration commissioners.
It is being broken because Reality TV and the media at large insist on promoting the ‘Entrepreneurship Fairytale’ in which all that is needed is a good idea and few hours with a business adviser.
It is being broken because we lack a brave, positive and long term approach to developing more enterprising communities.
It is being broken because we are not seriously trying to engage the disengaged in making a better life.
Anyone ready for a change?
The End of (Enterprise) Education?
My eldest daughter came home from school last week with something like 10kg of university prospectuses. She spent much of the week-end browsing the frightening range of courses available.
And it got me thinking about whether the compulsory education that she has experienced so far, all 13 years of it, have really provided her with an excellent platform for wealth and fulfillment in her adult life. And the result of my pondering was:
- As a premise I believe that education is at its best when it socialises people into the obligations and freedoms of active citizenship, and immunises them against imprisonment by the gilded cages of consumerism. So why does so much (enterprise) education appear to be about the development of the next generation of employer fodder/entrepreneurs/snake oil sellers?
- Is this because we are failing to teach the real meaning of ‘social enterprise’ now that it has become embedded in what Todd Hannula describes as ‘agency led mush’?
- Have we ever properly taught the notion of social enterprise? Is it really more the the pursuit of ‘enlightened self interest’ in the marketplace?
- To release prodigious human energies and good will we must learn how to help people find powerful narratives that give meaning and direction to their lives.
- We must help them to learn about themselves at least as much as we should help them learn about the world outside of them.
- We must encourage them to explore what they love and who they can become in pursuit of their potential.
- We must educate them to properly understand their own self interest and how this fits with the self interest of others in a mutually sustainable and progressive community.
- We must help them to become experts in using power in pursuit of mutual self interest.
- We must help them to build their power in creating the kind of future that they want to see for themselves and for the diverse communities that live on spaceship earth.
Perhaps consideration of these statements might just help us to realise ‘the end of (enterprise) education’.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- …
- 9
- Next Page »