2010 Social Enterprise Summit: Final Day and Takeaway

Tristan reports on the final day of the 2010 Social Enterprise Summit and World Forum…


Following the previous night’s performance of soothing and rustic tones of Wake For Dead, The Grateful Dead cover band with a Celtic twist, Day 3 at the 2010 Social Enterprise Summit started out with some Aussie flavor.

I attended the Stories from Australian Social Enterprises: Key Learnings from the Journeys of Practitioners session that profiled key findings from 35 practitioners. They covered organizations covering urban renewal to youth empowerment to recycling and social enterprise to nonprofits. One key finding I found interesting was social entrepreneurs who founded and built a successful social enterprise tended to be better off transitioning to their next idea instead of running the company for years more after the business was established.

I then learned about three inspiring youth-focused social enterprises during the Youth-Based Ventures from Around the World session. The one that caught me as intensely passionate was Kibble, an organization that's been operating in Scotland for over 150 years. They have consistently taken an intimate role in lives of the most at-risk young men in the region via education and work.

After the morning sessions the conference went to lunch and the second keynote speaker, Dan Pallotta, who I discuss below.

My Summit Takeaways

When I go to a conference I’m looking for a mind switch. I want conventional thinking to be proven wrong. I want to be taught something new. Because of this my two largest takeaways from the 2010 Social Enterprise Summit and World Forum were from the two keynote speakers Chip Heath, author and professor at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Dan Pallotta, author and founder of Pallotta TeamWorks.

Heath’s presentation proved to me that one doesn’t always need to look at the bad side of things to try changing a problem. There are “bright spots” that can teach us about what is working in a specific environment. One of the stories Heath told was about a researcher who traveled to Southeast Asia. The researcher wanted to help the poorest of the rice farmers whose children were malnourished. Instead of addressing the problem through conventional thinking, the researcher discovered a few families whose children were healthier -- a bright spot. He found out their mothers included additional items in their daily rice meals, including small rice paddy crustaceans. By teaching this information to the other families the researcher found a way to improve the lives of the rice farmers without making drastic changes, but by modifying the situation.

Pallotta’s speech also stirred my skull. He discussed the unfair disadvantages that nonprofits face due to public perception. The part that stuck me the most was how he addressed the question: What percentage of my donation goes to the cause? “Don’t ask it!” Pallotta exclaimed. The question isn't able to show the effectiveness of a nonprofit and is part of a double standard that unfairly labels nonprofits with less flexibility than for-profits. Corporations take risks, try new ideas, hire visionaries and spend millions to market their ideas, but if they fail or spend excessive amounts it is considered part of their business plan.

On the other hand, nonprofits tend to be looked down upon if they try a million-dollar fundraising campaign, hire and adequately compensate a new visionary leader, or take new risks to try and further their cause -- many of the same steps successful businesses take. Instead donors, the media and other charity evaluation methods label the lowest overhead as the most successful, even if that low overhead means shoddy management and services.

Overhead is part of the cause, Dan explained. Running a nonprofit efficiently and effectively takes manpower, marketing dollars and more. Recently the founder of the nonprofit watchdog Charity Navigator stated, “Overhead ratios and salaries are ineffective in evaluating a nonprofit’s impact.” Impact should be the most important evaluating device.

These mind shifts made me think, and thus, made the conference.