Learning from Ruthlessness

Those of you who attend the School for Social Entrepreneurs will understand the background of this blog. Enough said. 

Ruthlessness is not a pretty quality. It means "without Ruth": without pity. It can mean to be without regret; not sorry for past decisions and actions (neutral). But it often carries the negative meaning of merciless or cruel. 

In the business or enterprise setting, ruthlessness implies "using  people and resources to attain the ultimate goal (profits for the stakeholders) without considering the negative consequences ".  Although we might think (and hope) that ruthless leaders would not be successful in the enterprise arena, this simply is not true. I won't name names but just the word "tycoon" conjures up a list of celebrity business men and women who have accrued fortunes as ruthless leaders in their sector. 

Why discuss ruthlessness in a Social Enterprise blog? Well let's remember that social enterprises are businesses which use people and resources for the attainment of their goals. Because of the social nature of these endeavours, social entrepreneurs tend to be repulsed by ruthlessness in the business sector.   But rather than end it there, to respond in repulsion, I think the social entrepreneur can learn from the ruthless nature of business leaders.  It's not about adopting a ruthless character, it's about asking the right questions, adopting the right principles.  I think we need to be asking this question in relationship to successful, driven entrepreneurs: what is it that actually drives ruthless business leaders to fulfill their entrepreneurial goals at all costs?  and, more importantly, in the journey of their ruthlessness, what are they trying to avoid? 

So here is my attempt to get us to learn something from ruthlessness.  I hope you can read it with an open mind and, perhaps, respond in some way.

Highly driven entrepreneurs set their sights on three things:

success, profit (beyond sustainability) and competence. 

So, what are these same people trying to avoid? The opposites of these are:  

failure, loss (unsustainability) and incompetence. 

Let me speak to each of these paired issues.

Success (vs failure).

Generally speaking, ruthless entrepreneurs clearly define business success in monetary terms (e.g. someone might say that success is to earn enough money to be happy!)  Social entrepreneurs tend to argue against such a definition and avoid the implications of money in their definition of success.  But I think we need to remind ourselves that this is a valid definition for businesses.  Think of it this way, few of us would argue with this statement:  a business which declares bankruptcy or enters voluntary receivership has failed.  Therefore the obverse statement must be somewhat true: a business which turns a profit is successful.  It is valid for businesses to define success in monetary terms. 

What's my point? Ruthless entrepreneurs know why they exist and go at that purpose with all their energies.  Unfortunately, people and resources may be seen more like obstacles than assets for attaining such outcome.  In fact, those who have experienced business failure and have had to recover from such pain tend to develop  a stronger desire to succeed at all costs.

 

Where am I going with this?  Social entrepreneurs will do well to clarify their definition of success.  Further, the social entrepreneur must not shy away from including a monetary aspect to such a definition and allow this definition to drive them.  Social entrepreneurs forget they are in the business world.  It is my opinion that the social entrepreneur distances him or herself from a definition of success which carries any dollar value in order not to be associated with ruthlessness.  I’m not sure this is best for the social enterprise.  Perhaps the next section of discussion will clarify why. 

Profit (vs loss).

Ruthless entrepreneurial leaders are driven by the need to succeed.  Success defined in monetary terms requires their endeavour to become more than financially sustainable but to turn a profit.   Large businesses, to reach beyond sustainability, gain large sums of money. Think of the implications of this.  A $50 million dollar a year business is bringing in about one million dollars a week, $200,000 a day! In my experience I cannot imagine myself getting out of bed this morning and going to bed tonight and saying: my business just earned $200k! When I think of that kind of pressure which these entrepreneurs must face, I think I can forgive a bit of ruthlessness in their behaviour. The entrepreneur in the $50m a year business is held accountable each moment of each day for the income, the profit and loss, he or she is operating. The financial burden must be tremendous.

 

In the social enterprise sector, we tend to define our achievements in the non-accountable realm. I helped people (while losing $500,000!) but I helped people! We seldom hold ourselves in the social enterprise model accountable for anything truly measureable.  If we do, we don't tend to worry about missed goals. After all, the bank doesn't show up and take away our building if we don't reach them.

I am suggesting that the social entrepreneur needs to get a bit more honest about his or her goal setting and a bit more ruthlessness in the pursuit of the fulfilment of those goals.  Social enterprises need to become a bit more driven in the area of profit and more concerned about avoiding loss.  I think we can learn this lesson well from driven, even ruthless, business leaders.

Competence (vs incompetence).

Ruthless business entrepreneurs have a drive to be the best among their peers; to be declared competent. Incompetence in a business which claims the corner on expertise is not tolerated. Reputations depend on consistently displaying a high level of competence. Good reputation means profit, profit means success. Ruthless business leaders demand competence from themselves and from others. Incompetence is not tolerated and employees are fired who harm the company's reputation. 

In the social sector which focuses on the person and his or her contribution no matter how small, competence is measured, many times, in being and not so much doing. As a result, outcomes are not measured in quality or (as we see in the previous section) quantity. Outcomes are measured in a fair-go (to attempt something, no matter what the quality of the attempt, is what counts).  But many businesses have failed in just giving it a go. Quality and quantity, efficiency and durability, are important factors in delivery and service in the social sector.

Again, I am suggesting social entrepreneurs must learn how to raise the bar of quality and quantity of product and expectations on production. My impression is that social enterprises need that kind of ruthless behaviour, “drivenness”, as they lead those serving the community.

Conclusion

Can we learn from ruthless entrepreneurs without becoming ruthless ourselves?  I think we can and must!  Social Entrepreneurs need to work on a definition of success that includes in some significant way the concept of money.  The social entrepreneur must become more driven in the profit-making arena.  The social entrepreneur must work hard at raising the bar of quality and competence in the area of his or her business.  Rather than becoming repulsed by ruthlessness, let’s embrace those principles which will be powerful examples back into the business world. .

Exult the Entrepreneur! ! !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6MhAwQ64c0

Conscious Connecting

In the social enterprise world (not unlike the "real" world) the social entrepreneur hopes for that one big opportunity through which all hopes and dreams will be fullfilled.  At the School for Social Entrepreneurs in Sydney this past week we had an example of that.  One student received a call from the Prime Minister's office to be a part of a "town meeting" in which this student was able to make her 1 minute project pitch to the PM directly.  Immediately doors swung off their hinges and her project leaped lightyears forward.  We, students, listened to this story mouths-a-gaped, applauding success and drooling with envy at such a win as this.

But let's talk reality.  Most of us in the social world will not get that kind of opportunity.  And it's ok.  What we will get is this: the opportunity to make the small connections which over time will add up to a powerful force for change in our communities.

Social Entrepreneurs can be loners.  I speak from experience.  It's not just a male thing, but there's got to be some connection, that we think we can do this thing alone.  No one can really do it as well as I can!  And we try to develop projects which are not well-connected to anybody else's.  It's almost as if we think taking time to connect will slow us down in our projects moving forward.

I am learning what it means to connect; yes, even to schmooze.  Schmoozing is that ability to put yourself and your project forward, to develop presence, to let people know who you are and what you are about.  And to do so confidently and assertively without missing many opportunities. And this has been a learning curve for me.  But what's amazing, I see it paying off a little at a time.

Let me give two recent examples.

Neville is the head of Mission Australia's Work for the Dole programme in Canberra region.  We met a couple times and he shared his dreams with me.  We hoped these dreams would materialise through M.A. but the government had something else in mind when they didn't award them the contract and Neville was to soon be out of a job.

When the Jobs Funds were made available through the government, we at NationsHeart called for a round-table discussion on how we could approach this opportunity.  Despite Neville's future uncertainty, I decided to ring him and invite him to this discussion.  He came.  We had some great talks about dreams and methods and enterprises.  Two weeks later we learned that Neville has been appoint head of the Belconnen region of Campbell Page which won the government grant for Work Opportunities.  We look forward to having this connection in such a opportune place and time as this. 

One more illustration of my point.

Last month I decided to attend a seminar hosted by Social Ventures Australia offered in Sydney in order to connect (with anybody!).  I had heard that SVA was starting enterprise hubs and were tragetting Canberra.  I wanted to have some connection to this endeavour but was finding emails not returned, dead-ends to connections and uncertainty about this project.  This Syndey trip cost me  project time and money as I had to stay overnight in Sydney (out of my own pocket) to make the  seminar.  

At the meeting I had the privilege of meeting the speaker and the host leader.  (Doing this is neither naturally or easy for me).  Then I was told someone was there who was leading a conference the next day on the Jobs Fund.  I was doing the same in Canberra and wanted to connect with her to get her notes for the next day.  My only opportunity was to try to talk with Mandy at the break.  But the moment the break was called for I saw someone (whom I realised was not going to stop chatting with Mandy for the entire break) cornering her.  I felt my opportunity was lost.

Unlike the Ron of old, after waiting 5 minutes, I approached the pair and interrupted them.  I explained my dilemma, excused my rudeness and made a quick overview of my needs to Mandy.  The connection I made was not more than 3 minutes, I got what I needed and she could put a face and a project to my name.  These two went back into their discussion.

Yesterday, I received an email from this Mandy.  Mandy is moving to Canberra to work on the hubs that I had been pursuing with frustration and that we would be catching up soon.  This connection should and could be valuable toward the future of our projects.

Being from a church culture and trained as a preacher we were told we must be ready to preach, pray and die at a moment's notice.  None of which I really took seriously.  As a social entrepreneur we need to be ready to make connections at every turn.  That, we must take seriously.  You really never know when and which ones will pay off.  Yes, you may get that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.  But it's really going to be the never-miss-a-little-opportunity ones that will win us the day.

Ronaldo

16 May 2009 

The Barriers to Building

Social entrepreneurs are builders.  Sure, they don't tend to carry around hammer, nails and jack hammers, but they build.  They build people, they build communities and most of all they build hope.  The act of building comes with a cost.  It's not easy work.  Builders work hard.  Social entrepreneurs work even harder.  So what is it that stands in the way of building?  Let me share 3 great barriers to building:  entropy, gravity and bureaucracy. Let's look at these 3 obstacles to all building.

entropy

entropy is the natural process of moving from organisation to disorganisation. Think about your house.  It doesn't clean or organise itself;  in fact, it seems to go feral without your input (insert here: blame spouse and children!!)  But it's more than that.  Entropy is a natural process of decay and disintegration (2nd law of thermodynamics).   Leave something alone, let it stand untouched, and it will naturally become useless.  Park your car out in the desert for a few months, without touching it, it will become a useless piece of metal mass.  

When a builder builds he or she fights entropy.  For this reason, we don't build houses that stand the test of time out of paper mache.  Nonetheless, even the highest quality ediface has a lifespan.

Communities face the entropy problem as well.  Left alone, communities will naturally move from a state of organisation to disorganisation.  They must be maintained, actively sustained, even reogorganised in order to survive the insidious decay.  This sustaining comes through developing social services and enterprises which are pertinent to that community at that moment in time.  

What does that mean?  It means Social entrepreneurs need to know when to terminate certain projects (yes, even when they may have been running for a very long, historic time), when to start new innovative programmes and when to make key changes to existing ones.  This is not an easy task.  The community is in a state of constant change and flux.  That's why building is so difficult. 

gravity

We fight gravity every day of our lives. We walk up stairs. We lie on the sofa.  We lift heavy objects.  Each of these activities involves fighting gravity. Our bodies are fighting gravity until the day we die (look in the mirror, second thought, don't!) 

Builders fight gravity every day of their lives.  Hammers and equipment are heavy.  It's much easier to build a six-room one floor house than a six-room, six-floor house.  Roofing has got to be a harder job than working on a foundation.  Just getting the materials to site would be difficult if you are working on multistory building.

It takes great effort and perseverance to fight gravity.  For this reason, many builders leave the industry before middle age.  And for this reason, many social entrepreneurs give up before their hoped-for task is completed.  Perseverance is the antidote to gravity, to giving up.  Perseverance is the resolve found within a person to continue on when it's not easy to do so.

Social entrepreneurs need to be strong people.  Physically? yes, it helps.  Emotionally? even more so.  Mentally? like steel!  Because without inner strength gravity will pull down the best laid plans and dreams.

bureaucracy

When I first visited Switzerland I saw something strange.  I often noticed strange arrays of posts sticking out of the ground on hillsides.  These weird constructs certainly didn't seem permanent and made no sense to me.  What were they?  I discovered they were the outline of someone's future home.  According to local Swiss law the builder had to erect, months before approval, an outline of the proposed building.  Anyone who had a complaint, who felt the building would block a view or pose an eyesore, could protest.  It sounded like good bureaucracy.  But it certainly slowed the building process.

Not all bureaucracy is good, though.  Local councils can go crazy with rules and regulations.  Doors, windows, walls and floors all have a myriad of laws to be obeyed.  Yes, it's in the name of health and safety but building it full of bureaucratic red tape.

Every social entrepreneur knows the bureaucratic nightmare of red-tape and government compliance.  But there is something even more difficult and project-stopping than governmental bureaucracy.  Relational bureaucracy.

Doing the "right thing" relationally is sometimes so time-consuming that we feel we ought to short-circuit this bureaucratic route.  Later, we usually regret taking the short course.  Taking time to build relationships, care for people and connect with key gate-keepers is a slow, humble, sometimes painful, process that is necessary to building.  Social entrepreneurs want to get the project moving forward, sometimes quickly.  But taking the time, delaying the project, in order to build relationships is so necessary.  In fact, it is not just necessary, it's part of the project itself and needs to be written into the blueprints.

So there you have it.  Building is an exciting process.  But building is not easy.  Have fun but be aware that the barriers to building quickly and efficiently awaits you!

Ronaldo

9 May 2009 

 

2 Minute Pitch

At the School for Social Entrepreneurs we were required,this Wednesday, to develop our pitch. A pitch is a sales speech to potential supporters which is designed to evoke a response: namely, finance support to the project.  After a few practice runs, we were asked to give a 2 minute pitch which was video taped.  

During our practice time I noted some practical principles that ought to be considered when making a pitch.  These included the following:

1.  Personally connected...  when we think of making a pitch, we think of selling our product.  The product is our project.  We keep ourselves at a comfortable distance from our project during the pitch so that if our project is rejected, we are safe.  May I suggest we take the risk and sell ourselves with the project.  In fact, begin by selling yourself.  Sounds vain.  It's not vanity, it begins by believing in ourselves, believing in what we are passionate about (inside us) is worthy enough for others to believe in (and invest in) and believing that we will succeed whether or not this present pitch is successful or not.

2.  Picturesque...  Most people think in pictures.  We tend to talk in concepts.  This is why when we talk, people seldom listen.  We must learn to talk in pictures.  Draw pictures (quick ones) which people can relate to emotionally.  For example, saying: if your car broke down on a deserted road in the middle of the night, what one think would you want at that moment?  is much more effective that saying: my project meets peoples needs.  Along with this, we all must learn to tell stories.  Once we have that ability going well, learn to tell short stories.  See how short you can tell the story without it losing its impact.

3.  Land the plane...  I never flew a plane but what I imagine is that it probably is not too hard to take off or fly the plane, but very difficult to land the dang thing.  In pitching, landing the plane is most difficult.  Finishing your speech without a dangling participle or thought is valuable.  The worst first question asked at a pitch by potential supporters is: are you done?

4.  Make cents...   Tell 'em what you want.  It's not easy to ask for money.  It's nice when people respond to your project without being prompted.  But saying: I need $10,000 is being clear about what you need.  It makes it clear to supporters that if you got the money you probably have a good idea what you would spend it on.  Go ahead, ask!

5.  Smile!  Alway always always have fun with what you do.  If pitching is a misery for you, it will be so for your potential supporters.  Anytime people enjoy themselves they are more willing to let go (of themselves and their money!).  What's really hard is to smile when you are nervous.  It feels fake.  well, my only response to that is, learn to fake it.  You fake other things, do this too!

Here's my pitch, written, maybe someday they'll release the video (on Australia's funniest...)

I am Ron Blanchard and represent NationsHeart Connect.

How do you feel when you put your money in the drink machine and... nothing... nothing comes out...

I know how I feel... frustrated, angry and, most of all...   powerless.

At your disposal is that which would relieve your deepest needs of thirst but you cannot access it...

NationsHeart Connect builds projects in the Belconnen community which helps people access what they feel they have been denied.

Canberra has wonderful resources for developing people and their lives.  I love the variety of evening classes which are offered around the region during the school year.  CIT is fantastic in offering a broad range of training.  2 major Uni's with a mountain of majors.  All of this is offered within 20 minute bus ride from anywhere in the city.  The Canberra coke machine is full of wonderful opportunities.  But many people, many from Belconnen,  feel they are not able to access these resources.  The experience disadvantage; single mums, young unemployed men, the disabled.  In fact, Belconnen has the highest number of Centrelink clients in all categories except age care, indicating social disadvantage.

At NationsHeart Connect we believe that by empowering people with value and belonging people can overcome just about anything life throws at them.  I and my team build a community in which we do meet evident needs: Grocery needs through FoodHut; Children and family needs through Hit the Highway and PlayWorks; Disability needs through Rough Diamonds; Poverty and loneliness through BelcoKitchen.  But we do more than meet needs.  We run these services by encouraging cooperation and volunteers from those accessing the programs thus building value and belonging through developing life skills which open doors and allows disadvantaged people to gain access toward a wonderful future.

We invest over $150,000 per annum in doing this important work and today I invite you to join us as partners to support a greater work.  Thank you.

Ronaldo

6 May 2008

Jobs Fund Discussion in NationsHeart Connect

A group of 11 interested people met at NationsHeart Friday 1 May for discussion regarding the $650m Jobs Fund initiative offered by the Rudd government to nonprofits, community and government organisations to stimulate the economy.  The following is a summary of this rather exciting meeting.

I introduced the participants and the reason for the meeting.  I shared the goals of NationsHeart Christian Community to form a new nonprofit (tax-deductible) Company Limited by Guarantee (named NationsHeart Connect) which will oversee the Community Connections projects currently functioning through NationsHeart.  I emphasised that our purpose to create a community which values individuals and provides a place of belonging.  Through our Social Services and Social Enterprises we are fulfilling this goal.

Janet McKinney shared the groundrules for the Job Fund.  We qualify to apply for the $200m offered for Getting Communities Working which will provide seed funding for social enterprises with a view to sustain and increase employment in the community.  The first round of the Jobs Fund ends 22 May 2009.  Our goal is to get some proposal on the table to the government by that date.

I then talked about the concept of Social Enterprise providing a definition and criteria for these businesses.

Social enterprises are businesses whose bottom line is to benefit society or the community and profits from the business are channeled back to the business or to the community for benefit.

Social enterprises are characterised by having hte following 7 components: an explicit social aim; a commercial orientation; a business activity; an enterpreneurial drive; it uses profits for community benefit; its social owned; finally, its socially accountable.  We spent some time discussing these criteria.

We then talked about ideas out there for social enterprise.  Of course it's impossible to replicate the discussion and even the spirit of said discussion here, I would like to say that everyone shared openly and a sense of passion was felt as people discussed their points of view, their vision for reaching the community and their desire to be a part of something which would bring change to the community.

I would like to summarise what was discussed by looking at the layers of the onion which seemed to be developing as the discussion ensued.

The outside of the onion is the overall thrust of what we would see we could do in Belconnen.  The group expressed its desire to help those people experiencing disadvantage or disability which kept them from entering some of the most basic of training for employments (e.g. CIT or apprentiseships).  There was a feeling that there is a great number of people growing up in our communities who cannot and will not accesss these kinds of training structures without previous intervention.  We called this kind of connection and help "bridging".  Discussion seemed to focus on how we could "bridge" this gap of lack in the community and do so in a business setting.

The next layer of the onion involved the groups of people who would fit the category of needed the "bridge" into the workplace training environment.  These included: youth, currently unemployed, people with social disadvantage and people with skill disadvantage.  

The next layer of discussion involved talking about the skills which a person experiencing disadvantage may need to practice in order to move forward toward being able to enter a training or skills education centre.  These were areas such as creative arts, manual arts, food services, computer literacy, garden skills.  The consensus seemed to be if we could provide a place in which people could learn these kinds of skills they would gain the self-confidence and awareness to move forward to train in already existing institutions.

So what does this look like?  The next lay of discussion surrounded the actual business model.  These included the following:  An arts centre in which ceramics, screen printing and furniture making were developed; a cafe in which people were trained to be baristas in cafes around Canberra, a computer centre in which people were trained to use open source software and a garden centre where people were trained to grow their own food.

The next layer of discussion surrounded how to make these models into business ones; that is, to create the enterprise sector.  Sales of art and t-shirts, a fully functioning cafe, a computer training centre, a garden market for selling produce to the public were discussed.

Another layer of discussion was around what is marketable in todays world.  This brought us to discuss the desire for organic items, homemade quality, green and recycling and the need for focus on an ethnic mix.

Finally, we dreamed about how to pull this off.  One of the participants referred to the open lot down the road which would allow for this to happen.  The desire of the group was to pursue the availability of said parcel of land (previously used to train children to ride their bikes in traffic).

The feeling of the group at the end of the meeting was very positive and would love to re-convene next week, same time.

I assured the group that the entire discussion a dreaming that took place in those 90 minutes were along the lines of the dreams for which NationsHeart Connect was being formed.  Further, that alothough we met on the basis of a government offer -- Jobs Fund -- that, our success in pulling off these dreams was not predicated on the Jobs Fund.  The dream could and will go on whether or not we can apply or attain such funding at this moment.

Ronaldo

2 May 2009

My Social Entrepreneur Mentor, on hearing how busy I am, asked me: How are you able to keep so many balls in the air?

I responded: Sometimes I fail.