Social entrepreneurship ± a new look at the people
and the potential
Keywords
Capital, Entrepreneurs,
Development, Private sector
Abstract
Considers the crucial role of
private sector social
entrepreneurship in the context of
a state welfare system stretched
beyond its means. Defines social
entrepreneurship, recounts a
number of key points from relevant
research projects, reflects upon
current developments and
initiatives, describes a number of
cases and uses these to draw a
set of tentative conclusions about
social entrepreneurs and social
entrepreneurship in the context of
the current government's aim of
fostering rapid growth in the
sector. Concludes that while such
growth is highly desirable, a
number of hurdles have to be
overcome.
Management Decision
38/5 [2000] 328±338
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0025-1747]
[ 328 ]
John Thompson, Geoff Alvy and Ann Lees
Huddersfield University Business School, Huddersfield, UK
Introduction
Much has been written about
entrepreneurship, mainly as a driver of
capitalism and economic activity. However,
when economic decline has adversely
affected local communities, these
communities are likely to need both
economic and social regeneration. As well as
business entrepreneurs, we need social
entrepreneurs, people who realise where
there is an opportunity to satisfy some unmet
need that the state welfare system will not or
cannot meet, and who gather together the
necessary resources (generally people, often
volunteers, money and premises) and use
these to ``make a difference''. Social
entrepreneurship is not new, although it is
beginning to enjoy a higher media profile
than it has in the past. It was, after all, the
bedrock of Victorian private hospitals; it has
always been a key feature of charity work;
and it is clearly evident in the more recent
hospice movement. It is important; if any of
the ventures discussed in this paper were to
disappear, the communities they help would
lose something which demonstrably adds
value for them. Social entrepreneurship
needs champions who understand which
initiatives are most appropriate, feasible and
desirable and who can bring out the latent
enterprise in others. This paper explores the
current need for social entrepreneurship,
describes a number of contemporary
examples and considers the implications for
achieving UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's
stated ambition of an ``explosion of acts of
community'':
In the first half of this century we learned that
the community cannot achieve its aims
without the help of government providing
essential services and a backdrop of security.
In the second half of the century we learnt
that government cannot achieve its aims
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
without the energy and commitment of others
± voluntary organisations, business and,
crucially, the wider public . . . I have always
believed that the bonds that individuals make
with each other and their communities are
every bit as important as the things provided
for them by the state . . . Every year thousands
of social entrepreneurs achieve extraordinary
things in difficult circumstances . . . For all
the millions who get involved [in community
initiatives and the voluntary sector] there are
millions more who would get involved if they
knew how . . . So I set down a challenge: That
we mark the Millennium with an explosion in
``acts of community'' that touch people's lives
(Extracted from a speech by UK Prime
Minister Tony Blair in January 1999).
Social entrepreneurship can be readily
understood from the following example
(Dinnen and Dinnen, 1995):
Elliott Tepper is an American missionary
who lives in Spain. He has an MBA but has
chosen to channel his not inconsiderable
energies into helping alcoholics and drug
addicts. He started Betel, a not-for-profit
Christian rehabilitation centre, in the early
1990s. At any one time Betel houses over 500
young addicts, both men and women, in
single-sex homes in ten Spanish cities, in
Birmingham in the UK and in Brooklyn, New
York. Half of the people on Betel's programme
are HIV-positive. Most of the houses or
``communities'' ± a number of which have
been obtained by initially squatting and then
``doing up'' ± are run by volunteer ex-addicts.
In return for a place to live and an
opportunity to break their addiction, the
residents have to turn their backs on alcohol,
cigarettes and drugs ± and work, mainly with
their hands. Rules are strict, and any resident
who breaks the rules is thrown out
immediately and unceremoniously. Betel
provides cleaners, plumbers, painters and
bricklayers as well as running charity shops
which sell used clothes and household items
they have been given. Most of their food is
donated by local supermarkets ± it is typically
food which is close to its sell-by or use-by date
and which otherwise would be wasted. Betel's
goal is self-sufficiency but it does receive
financial donations from City councils and
John Thompson, Geoff Alvy the Red Cross and looks for free materials its
and Ann Lees workers can use.
Social entrepreneurship ± a Five thousand people have passed through
new look at the people and in seven years. Half have stayed for at least
the potential
six months. Tepper believes people need to
Management Decision stay for at least a year if they are to beat their
38/5 [2000] 328±338
addiction; and of the 5,000 some 17 per cent
have left fully cured. Of those who accept the
Christian faith, the success rate seems to be
as high as 90 per cent. The ratio of men to
women has been 4:1. 3 per cent have been aged
under 20, 54 per cent between 20 and 30,
leaving 43 per cent over 30 years old.
Currently the annual revenue ± donations
plus income earned by the resident workers ±
is equivalent to £3 million.
Here we see that an obvious need is being
addressed by someone with a vision who is
able to gather together the financial, people
and other resources required to
operationalise the vision. On this occasion,
and not unusually, that person is a Christian
Minister. At the heart of the initiative are
buildings, without which the venture would
be impossible. Like the partial reliance on
charity shops all these issues are commonly
found in social entrepreneurship. Three
other factors make Betel distinctive and
unusual ± and different from most charities.
First, in order to benefit from the
rehabilitation programme, people have to do
something; the support they receive is not a
free gift. Second, part of Betel's income comes
from the beneficiaries actually working and
earning. Third, the original idea has been
grown into a major initiative which has
broken out of a single community identity.
``Break-out'' does happen with social
entrepreneurship; it is simply unusual. The
hospice movement, for example, highlights
how success in one area can generate a whole
series of local initiatives, all of them different
in some way, but sharing a common vision ±
we might call this geographic break-out.
Other initiatives break-out by diversifying
their range of activities and changing their
scope once they achieve their original
purpose. Examples of this are featured in this
paper.
What is social entrepreneurship
and why is it important?
Entrepreneurship, regardless of its context,
involves three key elements:
1 a vision;
2 someone with leadership skills who can
operationalise the vision ± which often
involves finding a suitable partner,
engaging the support of a range of,
sometimes voluntary, helpers and dealing
with the inevitable setbacks (the vision
may be that of the social entrepreneur
who starts the venture or one which is
``bought in'' ± as we shall see later); and
3 a will to build something which will grow
and endure.
Entrepreneurship, then, comprises an (often
opportunistic) idea and the ensuing actions
which bring about desirable outcomes.
Expansion in some way is often an important
element. Sykes (1999) defines three key
contributions to the growth of organisations:
1 envisioning a future state in an uncertain
environment;
2 enacting the vision by giving it direction
and purpose and acquiring the necessary
resources; and
3 enabling it to happen by harnessing the
support of other key people.
Clearly entrepreneurship ± as a process ±
embraces all three. The entrepreneur ± the
person ± will invariably perform the enacting
role and at least initiate the enabling role,
but he/she may not always be the envisioner.
The vision could be ``bought-in'' from
somewhere else, replicating a good idea.
This article, then, looks at these issues in a
social context and offers some suggestions on
how additional initiatives and innovations
might be fostered. The authors cite two
previous research programmes, one by
Demos into social entrepreneurship, and one
into the development of the hospice
movement, which have been used to help
formulate a number of ideas and suggestions.
Some tentative conclusions have also been
drawn from a research programme at the
University of Huddersfield[1] which has
looked at a number of different community
initiatives in Yorkshire and Humberside.
In The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur,
Leadbeater (1997) concludes that the UK
welfare system is in need of radical reforms if
it is to deal effectively with the social and
other demands of the late 1990s, and a major
contribution to this can be made by social
innovations ± new, creative and imaginative
community initiatives. The need is to
innovatively develop new forms of social
capital which, in turn, will help empower
disadvantaged people and encourage them to
take greater responsibility for, and control
over, their lives. Social capital is here taken
to mean the creation of community-based
tangible and intangible assets which would
otherwise not exist. Tangible examples
would include buildings, services and
support networks; intangibles might be
identity, reputation and respect for some
achievement. This emphasis differs from the
definition adopted by authors such as
Fukuyama (1995) who see social capital as
[ 329 ]
John Thompson, Geoff Alvy
and Ann Lees
Social entrepreneurship ± a
new look at the people and
the potential
Management Decision
38/5 [2000] 328±338
[ 330 ]
``the ability of people to work together for
common purposes in groups and
organisations''.
In part this requires individuals who can
make a difference by seeing an opportunity
to do good and getting on with it. In some
cases, contributions will be in areas where
the welfare state is unable or unwilling to
help people. In other instances, services are
provided more efficiently and effectively
than they would be if they were in state or
local government hands.
To support his conclusions Leadbeater
(1997) cites five successful cases studies. A
converted hospital which is now a leading
centre for Aids care; a thriving community
centre based in what was a derelict church; a
drug treatment programme, again based in a
church; a tenants' housing co-operative; and
a scheme whereby sports personalities help
keep young people on depressed housing
estates away from drugs and crime.
Respectively the champions of these five
initiatives comprise one private sector
entrepreneur (the only female), two vicars, a
community activist (someone we might term
a civic entrepreneur because of his local
authority links) and a retired athlete. The
point is made that in every case there is an
identifiable leader, champion and
entrepreneur. The five organisations are
``social'' in the sense that they are not owned
by identifiable shareholders and profit is not
the driving objective. Moreover, they
``belong'' to society rather than, say, the state.
Leadbeater's social entrepreneurs are all
community-based and they are endeavouring
to regenerate some locality, which over time
can spread from a neighbourhood base to
have a national or even an international
identity. Nevertheless, many initiatives stay
small and local, mirroring the tendency of
many micro and small businesses not to grow
into medium-sized enterprises.
Figure 1 identifies four separate ``capitals''
which can be generated ± or threatened ± by
Figure 1
Four capitals which can be generated or
threatened
entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship, and it
puts social entrepreneurship discussed in
this paper into a wider context. Financial
capital represents the creation of wealth, the
outcome of a typical profit-seeking business.
Social capital represents community
resources ± typically the outcome of social
entrepreneurship ± whilst artistic or
aesthetic capital represents those more
intangible things which brighten our lives,
our homes, our cities and our landscapes and
create a ``feel-good factor''. Environmental
capital is concerned with the sustainability
of the world's resources. Some businesses,
such as The Body Shop, create social and
financial capital whilst preserving and
protecting the environment. The BayGen
(clockwork) Radio, manufactured in South
Africa from a UK invention and provided free
or subsidised (by the Red Cross and Unicef)
to countries in the third world where
batteries are prohibitively expensive, blends
financial and social capital. The Live Aid
concerts used aesthetic (musical) capital to
raise money to provide help to certain poorer
countries in Africa and thus provide them
with social capital. Some profit-driven
businesses, of course, because of their strong
financial focus, destroy social, aesthetic and/
or environmental capital in their quest for
wealth and power. Moreover, a lack of
financial resources or capital can constrain
social entrepreneurship and restrict the
ability of social entrepreneurs to create
social capital.
Figure 2 synthesises a number of the points
discussed in the introduction to this article.
At the heart is a need being met; in a
strategic context this would be termed
positioning. Resources are being obtained,
deployed and managed to satisfy the key
success factors associated with the
community need in an effective manner. For
this to happen someone, typically the
recognised leader of the initiative, has
instilled a vision which he or she has ``sold''
to others to obtain their support. In some
cases the idea will be completely new and
innovative and associated with the founder ±
in essence, truly entrepreneurial. In other
cases the initiative will be a variant on a
theme ± sometimes a close copy, sometimes
genuinely different ± but real enterprise will
still be required to make things happen. A
commitment to ``doing good'' (the values part
of the chart) will be in evidence in any
successful venture. Without it, essential
volunteer support would not be forthcoming;
moreover, unless there was also evidence of
achievement in this respect, fund raising
would be a problem.
John Thompson, Geoff Alvy
and Ann Lees
Social entrepreneurship ± a
new look at the people and
the potential
Management Decision
38/5 [2000] 328±338
Figure 2
Synthesis of the introduction
Finally, to conclude this explanation of
terminology, it is necessary to distinguish
between social and civic entrepreneurship.
In just the same way that many large
organisations endeavour to enjoy the
flexibility and responsiveness of smaller
organisations and encourage (some)
managers to behave entrepreneurially
(generally known as intrapreneurship), some
public sector organisations will free up their
managers to be civic entrepreneurs in order
to improve the level of local community
services. Another example would be a school
head teacher who behaved entrepreneurially
as the manager of a decentralised unit in the
public sector (see, for example, Leadbeater
and Goss, 1998). It is not unusual to see
evidence of a hybrid of civic and social
entrepreneurship ± namely the creation by a
local authority (close to a community need
but short of the resources required to satisfy
the need) of a private sector organisation run
by an entrepreneurial manager. One might
argue that this is a predictable outcome of
compulsory competitive tendering, where the
benefits of engaging the private sector in
community services has been demonstrated.
Social entrepreneurs
Many traits and behaviours of successful
social entrepreneurs appear to mirror those
of entrepreneurial businessmen and women
in the profit-seeking sectors (Leadbeater,
1997). Their leadership and personal qualities
are similar, as is their style and approach.
They are ambitious and driven. They have
been able to clarify and communicate an
inspiring mission; around this they have
recruited and inspired paid staff (albeit paid
less than in the private sector), users and
partners ± as well as an army of volunteers.
They have known where they could acquire
resources, some of which they have ``begged,
stolen or borrowed''. But their vision has
been for something which will add value for
the underprivileged sections of the
community. The development of
relationships and a network of contacts (a
typically entrepreneurial behaviour) has
brought trust, visibility, credibility and co-
operation which has been used as an
intellectual base from which the physical and
financial capital required to generate social
capital could be found. Creativity has
invariably featured. By understanding and
managing the inherent risks ± the projects
are often financially fragile with limited
resourcing; and the targeted beneficiaries
may be prone to stray ± the social
entrepreneurs have been able to overcome
the inevitable setbacks and crises.
It was never the main intention of the
authors of this paper to (simply) look again at
the similarities and differences between
entrepreneurs and enterprising people
operating in the profit-seeking and not-for-
profit sectors. As we have seen, this has
already been investigated and clear parallels
drawn (see, for example, Drucker, 1989).
Rather the purpose was to investigate,
compare and contrast examples of social
entrepreneurship featuring visionary and
entrepreneurial leaders who can see a
genuinely new social opportunity, and are
minded to act on it, with incidences where a
team of people (both remunerated and
volunteers) with a strong and committed
leader and project champion have chosen to
act in an enterprising way to provide
something new for a community ± and
evaluate the implications of the conclusions
reached. It is, of course, easier to develop
leadership and project management skills,
and to help people translate ideas into
realised opportunities, than it is to teach
them to spot the opportunity in the first
place. For many of us, the opportunity is a
good idea in retrospect. We see it when
someone else points it out to us ± yet we
always had access to the information they
used to spot the opportunity in the first place.
Simply, we could not see what they did at
that stage. We are not sufficiently observant,
in that we fail to question things around us
and wonder why they are as they are and
whether they might be improved.
Entrepreneurship ± in all walks of life ±
demands talent, temperament and technique.
Some people are natural entrepreneurs, but
appropriate training and development can
[ 331 ]
John Thompson, Geoff Alvy
and Ann Lees
Social entrepreneurship ± a
new look at the people and
the potential
Management Decision
38/5 [2000] 328±338
[ 332 ]
still help them. Others have the potential to
be entrepreneurs, but, for some reason or
other, the talent is trapped and needs
spotting and releasing. We might describe
them as latent entrepreneurs. Others may be
sound leaders of some particular venture or
organisation, but, lacking vision and
charisma, they will never behave in a truly
entrepreneurial manner ± such leaders may,
for example, lack the courage to take the
risks (an issue of temperament) to create
growth.
Some further background information on
Elliott Tepper (Dinnen and Dinnen, 1995)
reinforces these points:
Elliott Tepper's father was President of an
electronics firm in New York and a partner in
two other businesses. ``A man of vision, he
tried to do the impossible and I inherited that
from him.'' At the age of 14 Elliott's world
began to unravel when his parents divorced
and his father lost his fortune.
Elliott's college education began at Lehigh
University and was paid for by a wrestling
scholarship that he won ± he was the New
York State champion. This was followed by a
Cambridge (UK) MA in Economics and an
MBA at Harvard.
``In my last year at Harvard I joined a
commune and took part in all-night
discussions about politics and philosophy.
That was when I started taking
hallucinogenic drugs, hashish and
marijuana.'' This was followed by a life-
changing experience which encouraged
Tepper to become active in his local church
once he returned home after Harvard. He
subsequently attended Bible College in
America and worked as a missionary in
Mexico before going to Spain.
We can further infer from Figure 2 that social
entrepreneurship needs some combination of
people with visionary ideas, people with
leadership skills and a commitment to make
things happen, and people committed to
helping others. The process of
entrepreneurship brings together people and
ideas, and whilst the ``true'' entrepreneur
does have the requisite visionary, technical
and leadership skills, entrepreneurship can
still ± and often does ± happen when
enterprising or intrapreneurial people are
linked up with the visionary idea and
opportunity. Arguably, if the idea or need is
strong enough, the appropriate champion
will be attracted. Unpublished research by
the Gallup Organisation argues that whilst
leadership and entrepreneurship are not
synonymous terms, there are some
overlapping characteristics. Some ± but not
all ± entrepreneurial ventures, then, will be
championed by charismatic leaders.
Charismatic leader-entrepreneurs (see, for
example, Weber's ideas in Bendix, 1966, for a
definition) will be creative and innovative,
disruptive of the status quo, catalysts for
change, and responsive to situations, needs
and opportunities.
Further, it can be hypothesised that there
are people in the community who are keen to
work for their community, but need
leadership and guidance. These people are
more likely to be found in abundance than
are true entrepreneurs who choose to work
for the community rather than, say, for
personal financial gain. People closest to the
community and in the caring professions ±
such as vicars, doctors, teachers and social
workers ± will have opportunities to see and
appreciate needs and opportunities, but
individually they may have neither the time,
skills nor inclination to do anything about
them. Some will, of course.
Six further cases of social
entrepreneurship
The early 1980s was a period of social
upheaval for the mining communities of
Northern England, especially South and West
Yorkshire. Miners belonging to the National
Union of Mineworkers undertook prolonged
strike action to try and stem the flow of pit
closures. Fellow miners in the Union of
Democratic Mineworkers continued to work
in certain pits in Derbyshire and
Nottinghamshire. There was violence on the
picket lines and considerable economic
hardship. In the end the strike was won by a
determined Conservative government led by
Margaret Thatcher, and the outcome was
closed pits, lost jobs and devastated towns
and communities which had long been
dependent upon the coal mines. Castleford
Women's Centre (now officially the Castleford
Community Learning Centre) was started in
1984, during the strike, by a small group of
miners' wives, but championed by a latent
entrepreneur. Margaret Handforth, the
mother of three children, had latent
entrepreneurial talent, and it took the crisis
of the strike to release the full potential of
this talent. To quote their own summary:
``through those dark days women who had
been seen but not heard for most of their lives
discovered they had a voice and could use it
to create a better future for themselves and
others''. From a beginning on the picket lines
and soup kitchens a substantial and
continually evolving organisation has
emerged. Now relocated in an old Job Centre,
the initiative provides training facilities and
courses for all the local community, not just
local women. It is essentially a voluntary
sector open-entry college, known locally as
John Thompson, Geoff Alvy
and Ann Lees
Social entrepreneurship ± a
new look at the people and
the potential
Management Decision
38/5 [2000] 328±338
the ``University of Life'', and it is looking to
expand its activities with a residential
college in a listed mansion house and outdoor
sports training. It is still championed by
Margaret Handforth, although many of the
others involved in active roles in the
beginning have moved on. Its growth and
proposed diversification clearly represents
break-out.
The Get Sorted Crew in Rotherham is the
brainchild of another social entrepreneur, a
special needs school teacher, who saw a need
amongst local young people for an alternative
to ``streetcorners and boring youth clubs''.
Rotherham is a South Yorkshire town which
has also been affected by the closure of the
coal mines, but more significantly by the loss
of jobs in steel, as the industry has both
contracted and seen substantial investment
in labour-saving technology. From her own
interest in music Genya Johnson started by
encouraging local young bands who wanted
to rehearse and play modern music. From
humble beginnings in her own front room
(conceptually similar to the garage where so
many small businesses begin!) the
organisation now occupies rehearsal rooms,
a recording studio and attached social
facilities close to the town centre. There are
500 young people and 100 bands involved; the
age range is 14 to 18. Funding is provided
from a range of small grants and
contributions; in addition, there are room
fees. Although Get Sorted recently turned
down the offer of a local authority grant
because of the ``strings attached'', there are
ambitions for growth and diversification.
Genya Johnson's personal commitment and
dedication is immense; it demands time
every weekday evening together with
Saturdays and Sundays.
Interestingly, Rawsthorne (1999) reports
that the government has endorsed a similar
scheme proposed by Mick Hucknall, the lead
singer of Simply Red and a member of a
national music advisory body. The proposal
seeks to provide rehearsal and performance
venues for young musicians by helping
community centres and village halls raise
public and private sector funds.
The North Yorkshire village of
Grassington is very different from Castleford
and Rotherham. It is the centre of a small
rural community; agriculture is the
dominant employer and there is little
evidence of any economic hardship. The
Grassington Millennium Project was set up by
a local GP, Dr Jackson, some five years ago.
He had the sole objective of extending and
refurbishing the village hall. The project was
managed by a group of local people in
consultation with the local authority; the
new hall provides a social venue, a studio
theatre and space for local artists to display
their work. Some £627,500 was raised from
various sources, including a £100,000 grant
from the local authority. Dr Jackson has
since been looking for a fresh challenge!
Whilst the above three projects all
represent true social entrepreneurship, with
a clearly identified champion and social
entrepreneur, the next two feature a civic
involvement.
The Grimethorpe Community Partnership
was established by the local authority in 1992,
prior to the closure of the Grimethorpe pit in
1993. This resulted in the loss of 1000 miners'
jobs together with 850 more in related local
employment. An impressive and growing
range of services is now provided to local
people ± including a number of local agencies
and groups who occupy 24 workshops and
offices. These range from new start-up
businesses to rehearsal rooms for the world-
famous Grimethorpe Colliery Brass Band.
Local colleges also offer on-site courses. The
initiative is located in the private sector and
managed by a team of enterprising people
brought in initially by the local authority.
Orchard Park and North Hull Enterprise
Ltd (OPNHE) was similarly established nine
years ago as a partnership between the
community, private sector and local
authority. In its modern facility it employs
over 40 local people, managed by a Chief
Executive and Board ± whose Chair and Vice-
Chair are both local residents. The whole
Board is elected by the local community. Its
main aim is to ``improve the economic well-
being of the people of North Hull'' and it is
fulfilled by the provision of a wide range of
services. These include job shop facilities,
advice for start-up businesses, a credit union,
a training centre and an advice bureau. The
annual turnover exceeds £1 million.
A different type of social entrepreneurship
is illustrated by The Indian Muslim Welfare
Centre in Batley (West Yorkshire). The
Centre is an affiliation of six neighbourhood
organisations and it has been in existence
since the early 1960s. It catered originally for
worship but it has expanded to cover a range
of cultural needs for the local Asian
community. These include training,
weddings, funerals and health education
together with support groups for the elderly,
young people and women. Again it has
recently relocated to refurbished premises ±
which cost £1.65 million ± and can now
expand its services further. Its aim is to be
self-sufficient and cover its expenses with
income generated from activities.
[ 333 ]
John Thompson, Geoff Alvy
and Ann Lees
Social entrepreneurship ± a
new look at the people and
the potential
Management Decision
38/5 [2000] 328±338
[ 334 ]
The social need ± its nature and the
response
It can be seen that sometimes the need
spreads across a whole community, but in
other instances it is localised and focused.
The Community Learning Centre in
Castleford now serves the whole local
community, for example, whilst the Indian
Muslim Welfare Centre and the Get Sorted
Crew in Rotherham focus on targeted
sections of the community .
Some initiatives are very clearly proactive
whilst others have an element of reactivity.
Put another way, some needs are driven by
an individual's vision, others by necessity in
the light of a crisis situation. With the latter,
there is perhaps an element of ``cometh the
hour, cometh the (wo)man''. With the more
visionary initiatives, there are invariably
important social and community benefits,
but, somewhat paradoxically, are they
sometimes perhaps a bonus rather than
evidence of a key need being met? Contrast,
perhaps, Castleford with Grassington. The
social needs during and after the 1984 miners'
strike were urgent, clear and manifest ± but
the outcome was an emergent reaction. In
contrast, one might argue that the proactive
development of a new community hall in the
relatively prosperous village of Grassington
is useful and desirable but not absolutely
essential. Maybe the crisis-driven need is the
more urgent and the one most easily seen,
but overall it would surely be inappropriate
to only be responding to crises.
Some needs, then, have been met by
individuals ± Castleford, Get Sorted and
Grassington ± whilst others have been
implanted by external agencies such as local
authorities. Interestingly in the two cases of
civic entrepreneurship introduced above,
employees of the local authorities were in a
position to see and appreciate the need.
Realising that public sector resources were
stretched they managed to successfully put in
place private-sector initiatives ± with
employed managers who have turned out to
be social entrepreneurs ± who in turn have
generated new resources from the private
sector.
This drawing in of private sector funding
provides a useful contrast with the typical
hospice. Every hospice relies to some degree
on the support of its local health authority,
whose resources are limited and competitive,
and thus pulls public funding into private
sector initiatives. Collectively the hospices in
the UK constitute the Nation's most
successful charity fund raiser, but, of course,
they are all individual ventures based upon a
theme. The hospice vision concerns
palliative care for the terminally ill, both in
their own homes and also in special hospital
facilities when the burden becomes too much
for their carers. The founder of the first
modern hospice, (Dame) Cicely Saunders was
both a visionary leader and an entrepreneur
who responded to what she believed was a
crisis of a lack of effective care for the
terminally ill. Many of her successors have
essentially engaged her vision and
championed local initiatives ± although her
original idea of a 100-bed hospice remains far
more ambitious than the vast majority. The
hospice movement brings together a
religious perspective (a ``calling'' to help and
care) with a medical one (they cannot
succeed without expert medical assistance,
and, in most cases, financial support from the
local health authority) and a strongly
financial one (fund raising in a very
competitive environment ± there are
numerous calls on people's generosity ±
needs a hard-nosed and commercial
approach).
One might now ask: Do any of these
initiatives represent a deflection of effort
from the public to the private sector? Some,
of course, would argue that both the
Castleford and Grassington initiatives are
providing services which should be fulfilled ±
and funded ± by a local authority or other
public body. Whilst this case could certainly
be made, the very nature and character of the
initiatives would be changed ± and, arguably,
less entrepreneurial people would be
involved in running them.
This raises a further interesting debate.
Historically there are many examples where
initiatives begun successfully in the private
sector have been absorbed into the public
sector. Hospitals are now ubiquitous under
the NHS, supplemented, of course, by private
hospitals. Originally individual cottage
hospitals grew with private champions and
benefactors until the whole country was
covered. Eventually they were mostly
nationalised! Similarly schools grew with
independent and church benefactors until,
again, the majority were nationalised.
Presumably, the same could theoretically
happen to hospices, with the NHS (which
genuinely supports them) looking to take
them over. There would be enormous
hostility and an immediate reduction in
private sector funding, were this to ever seem
likely. But does the evidence from
Grimethorpe and Orchard Park flag that
there might be a realisation and an
acceptance that the public sector realises its
resource limitations ± with perhaps some
individuals involved in the public sector
committed to civic entrepreneurship and
John Thompson, Geoff Alvy
and Ann Lees
Social entrepreneurship ± a
new look at the people and
the potential
Management Decision
38/5 [2000] 328±338
others begrudgingly accepting the
inevitable?
Johnson (1998), meanwhile, has shown how
hospices are formed by quite different teams
and individuals, some with an obvious
``private-sector'' background and orientation,
others with experience in the public sector,
typically the NHS. The hospice movement
finally illustrates one other key point. The
type of leader required to start an initiative
off, gather the resources and achieve, say, the
opening of a building, may not be the person
best suited to managing the ``business'' on an
ongoing basis. Someone enterprising but not
necessarily visionary will be required for
this. The nature of the fresh challenge may
not be either appropriate or satisfying for the
restless visionary. Johnson (1998) found
instances of both ± cases where the original
champion had remained once the hospice
was open and running, and cases where there
have been changes of leader. There does seem
to be one common theme, however ± a
previous involvement with cancer or a
similar ``killer'' disease. He cites the
following examples: five nuns from the same
religious order working together; five nurses
(strongly supported by a retired nursing
tutor) championing the one in Wakefield; the
Lord Bishop of Coventry taking the lead in
the Myton Hamlet Hospice. The Butterwick
Hospice (Tyneside) had its origins when the
wife of a deceased cancer sufferer (Sykes'
(1999) envisioner) bought a large old house
and began to provide support for cancer
families; it needed the intervention of an
entrepreneurial businessman (the enactor)
and the later recruitment of a full-time
professional manager (the enabler) to grow
this embryo into a successful hospice with a
full range of services.
Some responses to the need are the
archetypal small business ± Get Sorted is an
excellent example. There is some restraint on
growth ± either people (volunteers),
premises, money or a champion who is
unwilling or unable to let go. Where the
champion also has a full-time job and the
social entrepreneurship initiative is part-
time, time must be a fundamental limitation.
Some initiatives are finite in scope; now
Grassington has been achieved, the
``entrepreneur'' needs a fresh challenge.
Some valuable community initiatives are
not in any real sense entrepreneurial. They
do not achieve anything new and different.
Enterprising and committed people
essentially repeat what has happened
successfully elsewhere. Examples might
include access-for-the-disabled ventures and
improvements to local bridleways and
footpaths. Many hospices would similarly
qualify. They are still important and they
imply that someone has engaged a vision.
Castleford, in contrast, reflects an unusual
and entrepreneurial growth business. Yet
other initiatives bring existing stakeholders
together more systemically. The Safer
Communities Consortium in North
Yorkshire successfully brings together the
police, probation service, local authorities
and businesses to create a community safety
partnership in line with the requirements of
the Crime and Disorder Bill. It represents a
more enterprising approach to tackling
crime by attempting to persuade a network of
people to be vigilant and proactive but is
governed by a Board of interested individuals
and stakeholders rather than run by an
individual champion.
The entrepreneurs: ownership of ±
and engagement with ± the initiative
This varies significantly. There are
occasional examples of private sector
entrepreneurs who seek a different outlet for
their talent. Championing the establishment
of a local hospice often sees such people in a
prominent role. We have seen how Get Sorted
is still ``owned'' by its teacher/founder ± who
saw the need from the position of her main
job as a teacher. In complete contrast, other
local ventures are sponsored by National
charities. The Salvation Army Housing
Association Foyers seek to provide, on a local
basis, a stable and supportive environment
for disadvantaged young people who have a
housing and employment need. Public sector
agency support, along with individual
volunteers, are a key feature. Nevertheless,
one issue concerns where the real
championing of the initiative and the
enterprise lies ± nationally or locally?
We have also seen that there are local
authority ``coal face'' people, close to a need,
but who cannot personally access the
resources required to both create and sustain
an initiative. At the same time, some
organisations and agencies, such as Safer
Communities, actually exist to sponsor
Government policy ± but there is still room to
be enterprising.
Church ministers are frequently involved,
sometimes as entrepreneurial champions.
One might question whether such activities
are really part of their remit, arguing that
this is simply a case where there is a
seamless connection between people's full-
time jobs and their involvement in the local
community. Clearly some ministers are very
proactive with community ventures whilst
others are simply supportive in a more
[ 335 ]
John Thompson, Geoff Alvy
and Ann Lees
Social entrepreneurship ± a
new look at the people and
the potential
Management Decision
38/5 [2000] 328±338
[ 336 ]
general sense. Surely a case could be made
that the championing of community and
social initiatives should be seen as an
essential role for a local vicar or priest; and
yet, the typical selection process for
ministers ± and the motives of those coming
forward for selection ± will be heavily biased
towards pastoral issues rather than
entrepreneurial skills and ambitions!
There are also community activists ± for
some, the so-called do gooders ± often people
with time, personal resources and a social
conscience. For some (middle-class women)
this can provide a new role and status ± and
wonderful preparation in terms of skills,
confidence and contacts for re-entering the
world of paid work, either full-time or part-
time. In a Maslow (1954) context they are self-
actualising. The aspirations of others are
more modest; they are more interested in the
social aspects ± the affiliation need
(McClelland and Winters, 1971). Perhaps
there is also a gender issue here, with
typically more women than men coming
forward. Quite frequently these activists will
need leadership ± and consequently they will
tend to sign up for existing initiatives. It
could be hypothesised that some of them will
have good and original ideas, but these are
prone to get lost and maybe fresh channels
need to be opened to ``exploit them'' better.
Some enterprising managers (both male
and female) will also opt to work in this
sector ± often accepting lower salaries than
they might be able to command elsewhere.
Hospice administrators would be an
example. Some may simply be active after
normal retirement, of course. In and amongst
will be some non-enterprising people simply
committed to doing good.
This, then, is an area where there is huge
potential if the right developmental packages
could be put together.
By and large technical training ± and the
consequent exposure to the relevant
technologies ± is a prerequisite for a
successful high-tech start-up. Would-be
entrepreneurs may need marketing and
financial training or help if they are to satisfy
a new opportunity they have spotted.
Meanwhile, people trained for the caring
professions have a different prerequisite for
a socially entrepreneurial venture; they are
likely to find themselves in close touch with
the areas of need. Moreover, their choice of
profession implies they have a commitment
to help certain sections of the community.
Technology innovation centres exist to bring
together people with technical ideas and
people with the skills and inclination to build
a business ± perhaps this approach needs
replicating in the social sector. In which case,
one key element will be entrepreneurship
and leadership training and development for
both professionals in the caring professions
and the army of volunteers. In addition,
many typical volunteers will need training in
up-to-date information technology skills for
some of the needs and tasks involved.
In summary, we can sometimes see
evidence of entrepreneurs, or at least
visionary and charismatic leaders. They
might start something which stays small and
local, or something large and local, or even
something which gets replicated elsewhere.
Enterprising ``managers'' can also be social
entrepreneurs. With their leadership skills
they get involved in projects and see them
through. They could be ``ideas thieves''. They
could be brought in by the original visionary
to support with particular and specialist
skills or to succeed him/her. Managers
appointed in cases of civic entrepreneurship
fit here. They are clearly essential for
anything substantive which is going to last.
Finally, but still significant and essential,
there are the (sometimes volunteer) support
people. As highlighted, they may be short of
skills or confidence and could be developed
into the enterprising leaders. Such training
would, inevitably, run the risk they could be
lost to the community sector as they opt for
full-time work elsewhere.
Concluding comments
There are a number of important impacts and
outcomes of the types of social
entrepreneurship ventures we have
discussed. True entrepreneurs create sea-
change movements, either quickly or over
time, and have a major impact. More
frequently, micro-entrepreneurs have
limited, local but still valuable impacts. They
build something of recognised value.
Enterprising managers often drive gradual
improvement with emergent strategic
change.
Often there is a tangible element ± a
building ± linked to the outcomes. This could
be single-use or multi-purpose and impact on
several sections of the community. One value
of a ``hard asset'' such as a building is that it
acts as a focal point for the effort ± it has to be
easier to raise funds for something visible
and tangible. Moreover, the lack of a place to
locate a prospective venture may mean that
some potentially really valuable schemes
never see the light of day. The building itself
is not the key outcome, of course; but without
the building the desired outcomes might not
be achievable.
John Thompson, Geoff Alvy
and Ann Lees
Social entrepreneurship ± a
new look at the people and
the potential
Management Decision
38/5 [2000] 328±338
Figure 3
Summary of points addressed
There is clearly both scope and need for
more social innovation and social
entrepreneurship if, on the one hand, the
identifiable requirements of the community
are to be met more effectively, and, on the
other hand, new opportunities to create
additional benefits are to be found and
exploited proactively. To accomplish this,
more social champions need to be found and
many of the people involved in existing
ventures need to be encouraged to become
more ambitious and more professional ± in
the context of increased efficiency. This
increased incidence implies increased
visibility and new forms of support. The
former can be achieved by widening
awareness ± one key purpose of this paper and
the associated research project ± and the latter
by introducing new training and development
opportunities for people willing to support the
ventures ± and maybe ultimately start a new
initiative. Here, the issue of the ``right people''
is important. Some people who are willing to
volunteer their services and time may be
inadequately skilled and qualified, and
without appropriate training will inhibit
rather than enhance the initiative.
In terms of efficiencies, because many
ventures of this nature can avoid the
rigorous monitoring found in the profit-
generating sector, it is important to ensure
that the appropriate performance measures
are adopted. By and large the real
effectiveness of anything deemed socially
entrepreneurial implies ``soft'' or qualitative
evaluation ± but quantitative measures such
as the number of clients benefiting, external
monies raised, the number of jobs created
and the numbers of volunteers (or honorary
professionals) attracted are all ideal for
benchmarking purposes.
Figure 3, then, summarises many of the
points and issues included in this paper. The
challenge we face is one of blending people
with ideas with people with the will ± as is the
case for entrepreneurship generally.
Training and development for this sector
needs to include a focus on confidence-
building and leadership skills, probably using
people who have already achieved in the field
± and (which would be typical) who are happy
and willing to share their learning. Those
involved must be able to ``sell the vision'' and
get hold of the resources required (through
networking). This can be usefully supported
with new case studies on the sector.
One important element in this.
Professionals attracted to this sector often
have many of the skills and the confidence
already ± what they lack is innovative ideas.
But people from more deprived backgrounds
± who are very close to the need and who are
often very willing to get involved ± are
perhaps more likely to lack some of the skills
and confidence. They are less likely to have
been in positions where they have had to take
a lead and make decisions for others.
To conclude, this analysis and research
programme would, therefore, suggest the
following needs if UK Prime Minister Blair's
hopes are to be fulfilled:
. More publicity ± especially via case
studies ± to generate awareness.
. More effective ways of engaging
additional people ± to help out at the most
simple level.
. Fostering more entrepreneurship by
bringing together people and ideas.
. Training and development packages ±
which acknowledge four themes/
challenges which are easier to deal with
as one descends:
± spotting (real) opportunities;
± transforming ideas into opportunities;
± leading (and growing) an initiative;
and
± managing (and sustaining) an initiative.
. Further research into the sector, focused
in particular on the hurdles and barriers
to the achievement of this ``wish-list''.
Note
1 This project comprised a series of in-depth
interviews with a number of community-
based organisations which have been put
forward for the Duke of York's Charter
initiative, a scheme administered by the
St William's Foundation in York and designed
to recognise and reward projects which create
valuable social capital.
References
Bendix, R. (1966), Max Weber, Methuen.
Drucker, P.F. (1989), ``What businesses can learn
from non-profits'', Harvard Business Review,
July/August.
[ 337 ]
John Thompson, Geoff Alvy
and Ann Lees
Social entrepreneurship ± a
new look at the people and
the potential
Management Decision
38/5 [2000] 328±338
[ 338 ]
Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust: The Social Virtues and
the Creation of Prosperity, Hamish Hamilton.
Johnson, M. (1998), ``Vision and achievement: an
investigation into the foundation of the
modern Hospice Movement to identify the
role of corporate vision in the non-profit and
voluntary sector'', PhD thesis (unpublished),
University of Luton.
Leadbeater, C. (1997), The Rise of the Social
Entrepreneur, Demos.
Leadbeater, C. and Goss, S. (1998), Civic
Entrepreneurship, Demos/Public
Management Foundation.
Maslow, A.H. (1954), Motivation and Personality,
Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Application questions
1 In what different ways can organizations
get involved with social projects?
McClelland, D. and Winter, D. (1971), Motivating
Economic Achievement, Free Press, New York,
NY.
Rawsthorne, A. (1999), ``Green light for scheme to
help young musicians'', Financial Times, 26
February.
Sykes, N. (1999), ``Is the organisation encoded
with a `DNA' which determines its
development?'', paper (unpublished)
presented at The Visioneers, Conference,
Putteridge Bury Management Centre,
April.
Dinnen, S. and Dinnen, M. (1995), Rescue Shop
Within A Yard of Hell, Christian Focus
Publications.
2 How would you ``sell'' a potential project
to both senior managers and colleagues to
encourage support and participation?