Paul Light is right to note that a great many non-profits are revived and improved by new leaders—who, as non-founders, are not characterized as social entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, notwithstanding the importance of such work, it may still be appropriate not to refer to them as entrepreneurs but as managers. The term entrepreneur—if the analogy from the private sector is to hold—can well be said to apply to those who have original ideas and start new organizations through which to implement them. Prof. Light rightly insists, though, that the rhetoric, mission statements and personality characteristics of social entrepreneurs draw undo attention, at the expense of hard-headed assessment of the effectiveness of their organizations.
In the Manhattan Institute’s social entreprneurship award program, we seek to recognize those who have had original ideas but can demonstrate effectiveness. It’s worth noting that these ideas need not reflect a mission as a “change-agent”, if that’s interpreted to imply a political agenda. Some missions seem always to be with us—educating and uplifiting the poor, for instance; it may be that we need original ways to fulfill this recurring mission but should avoid believing that only largescale change in our political and economic systems will make success possible. Indeed, at the Manhattan Institute, we have excluded advocacy from our criteria for social entrepreneurship, insisting, instead, that the provision of tangible services be the sina quo non of the field. In keeping with the emphasis on originality of approach, we exclude, as well, those who build organizations around government contracts.
The questions of how to assess effectiveness, whether advocacy should be considered social entrepreneurship, and whether enterprises built on responses to public sector RFPs are worth asking as the field of social entrprenership matures from slogan to substance.
Howard Husock
Vice-President and Director, Social Entreprenership Initiative
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
New York, NY 10017
212-599-7000
NYU’s Professor Paul Light is a respected thinker and writer on the subject of social entrepreneurship. I admire his work and look forward to its continuation.
That said, I must take issue with his article, “Reshaping Social Entrepeneurship,” in the Fall 2006 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review. While I agree with his assertion that social entrepreneurship is one of the most misunderstood terms in the social sector. The argument he goes on to make, I believe, will only add to the misunderstanding.
In his article, Mr. Light presents a broadened definition of social entrepreneur, writing: “A social entrepreneur is an individual, group, network, organization, or alliance of organizations that seeks sustainable, large-scale change through pattern-breaking ideas…”
I find this definition to be not only counterintuitive and grammatically defective, but intellectually counterproductive as well. The development of knowledge requires precise language. Mr. Light’s liberties with semantics send the burgeoning and essential professional discipline we are coming to know as social entrepreneurship beyond the edge of reason.
Since the 18th century, and as far as I can determine until I read Mr. Light’s article, the word entrepreneur has described a kind of person. A brief history of how the word has been used over the past three centuries, with references to the leading economists who refined that usage from time to time, can be found in a paper entitled, “The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship” by the man sometimes referred to as the father of the study of social entrepreneurship, founder and former co-director of Stanford’s Center for Social Innovation J. Gregory Dees.
The term has its roots in French and in that language is defined as one who “undertakes,” as in one who undertakes a project or activity. As Professor Dees points out by way of economists Jean Baptiste Say, then Joseph Schumpeter, and then Peter Drucker, the word has been refined to mean one who drives the “creative-destructive” process of capitalism…one who “shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield” (Say)…people who “reform or revolutionize the pattern of production…by exploiting an invention or an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on” (Schumpeter)…“the entrepreneur always searches for change, responds to it, and exploits it as an opportunity” (Drucker).
Many of the principles of entrepreneurship have been at play in the social sector for as long as the term entrepreneur has been in the economists’ vernacular. The term social entrepreneur first began popping up around the social sector through the late nineties. The international advocacy and funding group for social entrepreneurship, Ashoka, claims to have coined the phrase. Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair is cited as the first world leader to use the phrase when in 1999 in his keynote speech to England’s National Council for Voluntary Organisations he espoused “acts of community,” encouraging his countrymen “…to give something back…to be part of something bigger than themselves…” by supporting the “thousands of social entrepreneurs (who) achieve extraordinary things in difficult circumstances.”
In all applications, until Mr. Light’s recent article, the word entrepreneur has referred to a person, with the word social used as a modifier to distinguish the type of value (social versus financial) that person works to achieve.
Yes, as Professor Light alludes, organizations can adopt a spirit of social entrepreneurship. Groups can be guided by the principals of social entrepreneurship. Networks, organizations, or alliances of organizations can seek large-scale change through pattern-breaking ideas, as do entrepreneurs; and these collectives can work to produce social value.
But this does not make the groups themselves social entrepreneurs. If it did we would have to cook up a new term for the individuals who are first to reach beyond their grasps, the individuals for whom the initial vision of social value is clear in finite detail, who can communicate that vision in ways that enable other people to see it just as clearly, who can inspire people to form the ranks that will work to realize the vision, the individuals who get back up every time they are knocked down, who bring resources to bear where others see only bare bones, who never quit and never lose sight of the greater good. These individuals are social entrepreneurs.
Such individuals are the genesis of good social change…the people upon whom our future depends. These are the individuals we must nurture and empower with a precisely articulated, actionable professional discipline. So that they can effectively lead the movements that make the world a better place for all of us.
I applaud the work of Paul Light and the many other academicians and social sector leaders advancing their thinking beyond the definition stage, concentrating on the vigorous application of a social entrepreneurship discipline.
The best way to define social entrepreneurship is by example—to practice, polish and promote its principles and thereby demonstrate its value.
John Zurick, Founder & President
ZQI, Inc., The Shop for Social Entrepreneurship .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) http://www.zqi-inc.com
Blog: WorkAndChangeTheWorld.typepad.com
Eric’s company, IMVU, makes revenue of $40M a year
-Eric’s a BusinessWeek “Best Young Entrepreneur in Tech”
-He’s an Entrepreneur In Residence at Harvard Business School
-He’s the creator of the Lean Startup methodology, this decade’s most significant new paradigm around entrepreneurship
Eric’s point is exactly that of this article- entrepreneurship can have a methodology. He compared our current notion of entrepreneurs to that of the notion of good managers roughly 100 years ago in business. Namely, that good management was performed by managers who had unique managerial qualities. Now, however, there are management methodologies, and in the future, we’ll probably regard this era of entrepreneurs as similar to the outdated notion of managers.
My concern is the following: despite much talk of reshaping the world, SOCIAL ends were never mentioned.
Thus, how do we bring social ends and/or responsible impact into the mainstream discussions of entrepreneurship and make it a necessary condition on start-ups?
COMMENTS
BY Howard Husock
ON September 26, 2006 10:04 AM
Paul Light is right to note that a great many non-profits are revived and improved by new leaders—who, as non-founders, are not characterized as social entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, notwithstanding the importance of such work, it may still be appropriate not to refer to them as entrepreneurs but as managers. The term entrepreneur—if the analogy from the private sector is to hold—can well be said to apply to those who have original ideas and start new organizations through which to implement them. Prof. Light rightly insists, though, that the rhetoric, mission statements and personality characteristics of social entrepreneurs draw undo attention, at the expense of hard-headed assessment of the effectiveness of their organizations.
In the Manhattan Institute’s social entreprneurship award program, we seek to recognize those who have had original ideas but can demonstrate effectiveness. It’s worth noting that these ideas need not reflect a mission as a “change-agent”, if that’s interpreted to imply a political agenda. Some missions seem always to be with us—educating and uplifiting the poor, for instance; it may be that we need original ways to fulfill this recurring mission but should avoid believing that only largescale change in our political and economic systems will make success possible. Indeed, at the Manhattan Institute, we have excluded advocacy from our criteria for social entrepreneurship, insisting, instead, that the provision of tangible services be the sina quo non of the field. In keeping with the emphasis on originality of approach, we exclude, as well, those who build organizations around government contracts.
The questions of how to assess effectiveness, whether advocacy should be considered social entrepreneurship, and whether enterprises built on responses to public sector RFPs are worth asking as the field of social entrprenership matures from slogan to substance.
Howard Husock
Vice-President and Director, Social Entreprenership Initiative
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
New York, NY 10017
212-599-7000
BY jzurick
ON October 12, 2006 06:56 AM
NYU’s Professor Paul Light is a respected thinker and writer on the subject of social entrepreneurship. I admire his work and look forward to its continuation.
That said, I must take issue with his article, “Reshaping Social Entrepeneurship,” in the Fall 2006 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review. While I agree with his assertion that social entrepreneurship is one of the most misunderstood terms in the social sector. The argument he goes on to make, I believe, will only add to the misunderstanding.
In his article, Mr. Light presents a broadened definition of social entrepreneur, writing: “A social entrepreneur is an individual, group, network, organization, or alliance of organizations that seeks sustainable, large-scale change through pattern-breaking ideas…”
I find this definition to be not only counterintuitive and grammatically defective, but intellectually counterproductive as well. The development of knowledge requires precise language. Mr. Light’s liberties with semantics send the burgeoning and essential professional discipline we are coming to know as social entrepreneurship beyond the edge of reason.
Since the 18th century, and as far as I can determine until I read Mr. Light’s article, the word entrepreneur has described a kind of person. A brief history of how the word has been used over the past three centuries, with references to the leading economists who refined that usage from time to time, can be found in a paper entitled, “The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship” by the man sometimes referred to as the father of the study of social entrepreneurship, founder and former co-director of Stanford’s Center for Social Innovation J. Gregory Dees.
The term has its roots in French and in that language is defined as one who “undertakes,” as in one who undertakes a project or activity. As Professor Dees points out by way of economists Jean Baptiste Say, then Joseph Schumpeter, and then Peter Drucker, the word has been refined to mean one who drives the “creative-destructive” process of capitalism…one who “shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield” (Say)…people who “reform or revolutionize the pattern of production…by exploiting an invention or an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on” (Schumpeter)…“the entrepreneur always searches for change, responds to it, and exploits it as an opportunity” (Drucker).
Many of the principles of entrepreneurship have been at play in the social sector for as long as the term entrepreneur has been in the economists’ vernacular. The term social entrepreneur first began popping up around the social sector through the late nineties. The international advocacy and funding group for social entrepreneurship, Ashoka, claims to have coined the phrase. Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair is cited as the first world leader to use the phrase when in 1999 in his keynote speech to England’s National Council for Voluntary Organisations he espoused “acts of community,” encouraging his countrymen “…to give something back…to be part of something bigger than themselves…” by supporting the “thousands of social entrepreneurs (who) achieve extraordinary things in difficult circumstances.”
In all applications, until Mr. Light’s recent article, the word entrepreneur has referred to a person, with the word social used as a modifier to distinguish the type of value (social versus financial) that person works to achieve.
Yes, as Professor Light alludes, organizations can adopt a spirit of social entrepreneurship. Groups can be guided by the principals of social entrepreneurship. Networks, organizations, or alliances of organizations can seek large-scale change through pattern-breaking ideas, as do entrepreneurs; and these collectives can work to produce social value.
But this does not make the groups themselves social entrepreneurs. If it did we would have to cook up a new term for the individuals who are first to reach beyond their grasps, the individuals for whom the initial vision of social value is clear in finite detail, who can communicate that vision in ways that enable other people to see it just as clearly, who can inspire people to form the ranks that will work to realize the vision, the individuals who get back up every time they are knocked down, who bring resources to bear where others see only bare bones, who never quit and never lose sight of the greater good. These individuals are social entrepreneurs.
Such individuals are the genesis of good social change…the people upon whom our future depends. These are the individuals we must nurture and empower with a precisely articulated, actionable professional discipline. So that they can effectively lead the movements that make the world a better place for all of us.
I applaud the work of Paul Light and the many other academicians and social sector leaders advancing their thinking beyond the definition stage, concentrating on the vigorous application of a social entrepreneurship discipline.
The best way to define social entrepreneurship is by example—to practice, polish and promote its principles and thereby demonstrate its value.
John Zurick, Founder & President
ZQI, Inc., The Shop for Social Entrepreneurship
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
http://www.zqi-inc.com
Blog: WorkAndChangeTheWorld.typepad.com
BY Mitch Bloom
ON April 6, 2011 02:55 PM
I recently attended an event at which Eric Ries:
Eric’s company, IMVU, makes revenue of $40M a year
-Eric’s a BusinessWeek “Best Young Entrepreneur in Tech”
-He’s an Entrepreneur In Residence at Harvard Business School
-He’s the creator of the Lean Startup methodology, this decade’s most significant new paradigm around entrepreneurship
Eric’s point is exactly that of this article- entrepreneurship can have a methodology. He compared our current notion of entrepreneurs to that of the notion of good managers roughly 100 years ago in business. Namely, that good management was performed by managers who had unique managerial qualities. Now, however, there are management methodologies, and in the future, we’ll probably regard this era of entrepreneurs as similar to the outdated notion of managers.
My concern is the following: despite much talk of reshaping the world, SOCIAL ends were never mentioned.
Thus, how do we bring social ends and/or responsible impact into the mainstream discussions of entrepreneurship and make it a necessary condition on start-ups?