realisedevelopment.net

Just another WordPress site

Never Discourage Anyone…But Don’t Motivate Them Either

by

Never discourage anyone … who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. – Plato (427 BC – 347 BC)

Never.  NEVER!  NEVER!

I wish the judges of enterprise competitions would understand the importance of this.

At the grand finals of a recent dragon’s den type event (which included the usual cocktail of local business people, ‘would have been’ apprentices and celebrity millionaires on the judging panel) 6 finalists were asked to pitch their ideas.

The setting was the enormous stage in the Main Hall of a local University.  Powerpoint, radio mics, lapel mics, comperes.  It had the lot.

The audience?  A couple of hundred family and friends, enterprise professionals and housing types.  Some of the finalists took to this platform like a duck to water.  For others it was more like lambs to the slaughter.  I suspect for none of them was this a situation that could REALLY be justified as a legitimate and essential part of their ‘enterprise education’.  For most it was certainly not timely.

The task?  Deliver a 6 minute pitch about your business/start up idea and then face 6 minutes of questionning, while dealing with problems with both sound and AV systems of farcical proportions.  These were so acute I began to think they were deliberatley staged to test participants’ ability to think on their feet.  I am still not sure if the computer maintenance business sabotaged their own powerpoint to make some sort of point?

And the judges seemed to have available to them one of two responses.  The first were variations of  ‘You have something’, ‘You will make this work’, ‘Whatever you try you will find a way’.  At least one of the judges seemed to be able form this response based on just what people looked like!

The second was ‘You have got a problem’, ‘You have got nothing’, ‘It is terribly confused’, ‘Your name doesn’t work’.

It is hard to know which of these is responses is more dangerous.

I am sure the event and the competition that led upto it was a great success for funders.  Lots of PR, a big dinner etc.  But can we really say this is community engagement in enterprise?

I suspect that some of the competitors found the whole process deeply discouraging.

Interestingly the winner and runner up were both graduates.  Another wonderful example of enterprise skimming?

Share this Post

Community Anchors: Regeneration Cause or Effect?

by

Community Anchors are independent, community-led organisations. They are at the heart of their communities, physically and psychologically.  They are able to respond in a holistic way to local problems and challenges, by giving local people support to act.

Community Anchors come in many different shapes, forms and structures but they all share this basic purpose of animating and co-ordinating progress.  You can read more about them here and here.

It seems that there is a high correlation between communities that experience successful regeneration and the development of effective Anchor Organisations.

This has led many regeneration funders to seek to establish Anchor Organisations in ‘failing’ communities in the belief that they can weave their magic and turn things around.  And perhaps they can.

But I have a slight concern.  I would hypothesise that Anchor Organisations emerge from communities that are already working actively at their own regeneration.  They are a natural evolution as independent people and community organisations begin to reach out to each other in the realisation that only through association can they become more effective in their work.

Their success depends to a very large extent on the timing being right and incumbent diverse and fragmented community groups recognising that the development of a successful Anchor Organisation is in their best interest.  This realisation and consensus can take many years to accrue.

If this hypothesis is correct then we should expect Anchor Organisations that have been artificially seeded by external funders to find it tough going.   The local incumbents may not yet have reached the limits of their own development.  They may not yet see the need for the anchor.  They may see it as yet another project foisted on them by funders by more money with sense.

Instead of acting as midwifes to the birth of a wonderful new baby, regeneration professionals then end up putting a premature and often unwanted delivery into some very expensive intensive care – if the baby gets born at all.

I have had the privilege of working with some highly successful Anchor Organisations – which emerged from local people and groups in response to local circumstances and opportunities.  I have also witnessed Anchor Organisations struggle to get off the ground – and most of these seem to have been primarily ‘funding’ and ‘policy’ driven, conceived by outsiders as an appropriate ‘strategic’ response to the needs of local communities.

If my hypothesis is right then Anchor Organisations are a naturally emergent property of communities that are already on the up.  They are an effect of regeneration rather than a cause.

And instead of trying to seed them in communities where they perceive there is a need, funders should focus on facilitating local groups until such time as they decide that the time is right for an Anchor Organisation to emerge.

A leader is best when people barely know he exists,

when his work is done,

his aim fulfilled,

they will say: we did it ourselves.

Lao Tzu

Share this Post

My Favourite Enterprise Podcast…ever

by

While many businesses pay lip service to the idea of environmentally responsible practices, Patagonia has defined itself by “inspiring and implementing solutions to the environmental crisis,” says Chouinard.

The company has pledged that by 2010, it will to make all of its clothing from recycled and recyclable materials. Chouinard says that he would exit the clothing business altogether rather than compromise his standards.

Patagonia takes many steps to control its growth, such as drastically limiting its catalog distribution and not taking the company public in an IPO.

Chouinard even encourages his customers to buy less and focus on their needs rather than their wants. He insists that every time Patagonia invests in the environment, he sees an increase in the company’s bottom line.

Check out the full podcast here it is well worth the effort.

Share this Post

Community Empowerment Misunderstood? The Role of Enterprise…

by

First let’s look at some definitions of community empowerment:

‘Community Empowerment’ is the giving of confidence, skills and power to communities to shape and influence what public bodies do for or with them.

An Action Plan for Community Empowerment: Building on Success – October 2007

Community Empowerment is about people and government, working together to make life better.  It involves more people being able to influence decisions about their communities, and more people taking responsibility for tackling local problems, rather than expecting others to.

The idea is that government can’t solve everything by itself, and nor can the community: it’s better when we work together.

The Scarman Trust Forum Lecture by David Blunkett – December 2004

Helping citizens and communities to acquire the confidence, skills and power to enable them to shape and influence their local place and services, alongside providing support to national and local government agencies to develop, promote and deliver effective engagement and empowerment opportunities.

David Rossington, Director, Local Democracy and Empowerment Directorate, Department for Communities and Local Government

Community empowerment is the process of enabling people to shape and choose the services they use on a personal basis, so that they can influence the way those services are delivered. It is often used in the same context as community engagement, which refers to the practical techniques of involving local people in local decisions and especially reaching out to those who feel distanced from public decisions.

Communities and Local Government Website – August 2008

So it is about giving individuals and communities confidence, skills and power.  But to do what?

…to shape and influence what public bodies do for or with them…

…to influence decisions about their communities…

…taking responsibility for tackling local problems, rather than expecting others to…

…to shape and influence their local place and services…

…providing support to national and local government agencies to develop, promote and deliver effective engagement and empowerment opportunities…

…to shape and choose the services they use on a personal basis, so that they can influence the way those services are delivered…

One of the first lessons that we have to learn is that if we can empower people it is follow their own agenda – to pursue their own self interest.

Not to engage in the government’s agenda or the reform of public services, or local decision making.

I don’t know too many people who are champing at the bit to ‘shape public services’ and to ‘influence local decisions’.  Self interest, if defined at all, is rarely defined in these terms.

If we really want to empower communities (rather than just tap into them for ideas to save a few quid) then we have to start from a very different premise.  And I would argue that it is a premise that puts the individual first.  We have to use informal education processes to make the pursuit of self interest and power both legitimate and effective.

‘Community’ is a by-product of individuals actively pursuing their own self interest with power and confidence.  Such ‘enterprising’ people quickly realise that there is  power in association.  That negotiation matters.  That learning how to help and be helped are critical to making progress.  That shaping infrastructure and the environment matter – because they influence the extent to which any of us can pursue our self interest.  Without good schools, transport and housing how are we to pursue our interests?

So the starting point needs to be not ’empowering communities’ but empowering individuals.   And this is done by helping them to clarify and refine what is in their best self interest – not the community’s or the government’s or anyone else’s. Self interest needs to be properly negotiated with the self interests of others.  It should not be confused with selfishness.

And in parallel to the development of self interest there have to be systems to help people to develop their power to pursue it.  Processes to build confidence, skills and the ability to organise people and resources to make real progress.

So let’s worry less about empowering communities and more about helping individuals to clarify and pursue their own self interest with power and vigour.

Let’s invest time and money in helping individuals learn how to negotiate their self interest in the modern world.

Let’s invest in person centred processes of informal education.

Let’s re-shape formal education to focus more on helping people to become effective negotiators of their own self interest –  rather than passive consumers of a curriculum.

And as a by-product we will develop much healthier, more harmonious and politically engaged communities.

Why not….

Hat tip to Julian Dobson’s post ‘The Great Community Empowerment Heist‘
 which planted the seeds….

Share this Post

The Information Problem…

by

Todd Hannula has blogged about the possibility of an open source information platform for social entrepreneurs.  He posits that such a platform might help more social entrepreneurs get the information that they need at the right time.  Sounds like the kind of idea that the public purse might get interested in investing in.

But does it stack up?

  • Is the Internet not an open source information platform?
  • Is it possible to provide any more information within a few clicks?
  • Is the supply side of business support not already rammed full to the gunnels with information and workshops?

I think that the answer to the information question lies in an exploration of the ‘demand side’  for information rather than thinking about how we can develop the information ‘supply side’.

If entrepreneurs REALLY want to succeed (rather than look and feel good for a while) they should get the right team in place before they start.  A team that is as obsessed about financial management and marketing and sales as it is about saving the world.  With a balanced team seeking information and ‘better practice’ in each of these domains they are much less likely to fail as a business and the demand side of the information market place will be more robust.

So let’s have less encouragement to individual entrepreneurs to change the world single handed and more encouragement to them to build powerful and balanced teams.

Todd suggests that the realisation for most social entrepreneurs that they are ‘not very good’ at business comes ‘just too late’.  This is an unpalatable (and therefore largely unspoken) truth for nearly all entrepreneurs – social or otherwise.

They nearly all get a massive shock at some point.

  • They run out of money.
  • Customers get angry.
  • Products and services don’t work as well as was planned.

The question is how to respond?

  • Are they prepared for the shock?
  • Did they know it was likely to come along?
  • Do they have the networks and resources to work through the shock and to learn from it?
  • Or do they bail out thinking – ‘I am not cut out for this’?

How do ‘support agencies’ make sure that they are ready to face these traumas when they almost inevitably come?

Because the painful traumas of business start-up might discourage some people from starting, they are often swept under the carpet.

We might use some euphemism, like ‘You need to do a little more work on your business plan’, but we rarely help the client to explore the unvarnished truth; No matter how much planning they do they will never be ready.  There will be nasty and uncomfortable surprises.  It is the ability to deal with these shocks and their ramifications that will separate the entrepreneurs from the wannabes.

I choose to consistently focus clients on the possible downsides of their business as much as on the upsides.  I usually beg them to find some less risky way of following their dream other than starting their own business.  I make them explore the things that might go wrong – and of the devastating impact that they could have on finances, relationships and reputations.

People say to me ‘Mike, they will never start a business if you keep pointing out all of the downsides…’

Well I make no apologies.

If someone is put off starting a business by a good exploration of the possible downsides then they are probably making exactly the right decision.

It is not more businesses that we need, but better businesses.  Businesses that have a pragmatic understanding of the risks that they face (bankruptcy, debt, damaged relationships etc) – and are still prepared to take them.  Businesses whose antennae are tuned to both problems and opportunities.  You can’t stop a business like this from avidly consuming information.  They seek it out.  They devour it.  Even if it is hard to find or ambiguous.

Instead we often find ourselves trying to resource dozens of ‘wannabe’ hopefuls buoyed up by a raft of interventions to promote enterprise on a sea of support agencies whose criteria for success is based on counting start-ups rather than survival rates.  And then we have to find ways to spoon feed them information like medicine that might keep their business off the rocks – and we wonder if there is not some better way of shaping the information supply side.

Share this Post