Social Entrepreneurship: Different Perspective Analysis - Essay Example

Sociology Social Entrepreneurship: Different Perspective Analysis Registration: Module Leader: Workshop Due Introduction The concept of social entrepreneurship is contemporary and it has emerged to challenge the mindsets of the present social thinkers. Much like other concepts in the social sciences, different perspectives often emerge when understanding the concept of social entrepreneurship particularly in view of the concept’s practical aspects. However, before building an effective discussion on the different conflicting perspectives on social entrepreneurship, it will be important to focus on the understanding of the basic ideas behind the concept. Obviously, the definition of a concept is the initial point in understanding a concept. Very many definitions of social entrepreneurship have been proposed in literature. However, the basic idea behind the social entrepreneurship is its separation from the commercial entrepreneurship. This means that these two concepts share an idea, which is entrepreneurship, and this is the innate ability for an individual or group of individuals to spot and opportunity and devises innovative ways to exploit the idea. However, commercial entrepreneurship entails exploitation of the opportunity for personal gain, whilst the social entrepreneurship hinges on the greater societal gain. There are several examples of social entrepreneurships, and Coster (2011) made a personal list of top 30 social entrepreneurs in the world in 2011. Despite the impressive definition that attached to this concept, there are scholars who view social entrepreneurship as a panacea for cuts. This paper will explore a discussion on the debate that has ensued between two different and distinct categories of thinkers on the concept of social entrepreneurship. The Mutual Benefit Perspective The social entrepreneurs are often thought of as a group of mavericks, heroic individuals or misfits who unsurprisingly bring jobs, healthcare and education to the less fortunate members of the society. They are depicted as visionary having relentless optimism, coupled with practical and pragmatic ideas, applying business approaches in talking social problems, and they are not motivated by the need to make profits. Often such a group of person prefers being anonymity, and their identities hidden from the glare of the public prism. At least this was the perception of the concept in the last 20 years. Over the two decades, this group of people evolved into what Charles Leadbeater referred to as the social entrepreneur. The people who assemble the often ignored and underrated resources, such as human resource in the form of young people written off by the education system, neglected to buildings, and the social entrepreneurs uses them to address important social needs in the community. In his literature work, particularly, the rise of the social entrepreneur, Charles leadbeater provided a pioneering understanding of the concept, paving the way for groups such as church groups, venture capitalists, philanthropists, civic activists, community businesses to be identified as such. Through much of his literary work, Charles Leadbeater is a fierce proponent of the concept, citing the numerous instances of community entrepreneurs such as those who recycle plastics amongst others. However, there are the other group of scholars who argue that the concept of social entrepreneurship is vague, developed within plastic, ambiguous and un-adaptable discourse. Grenier is perhaps one of the fierce sceptics of the concept, still in doubt if indeed the concept has been achieved in reality. According to her, social entrepreneurs are just commercial ones as the basis for profits still lingers over their ideas. In a paper published in the year 2011, Grenier (2011) questions if indeed the concept has been transformed from the rhetorical locations inside the academic corridors to reality. Moreover, Leaderbeater asserts that people often have the incorrect idea on the character behind social entrepreneurship. He rebukes the idea social entrepreneurship and its link to the heroic individuals. In fact, he asserts that social entrepreneurship flourish on team independence, learning and lending money from the people and institutions from across the board. Social entrepreneurship is a relatively recent concept and it is facing a lot of challenges, but the biggest challenges yet is how to scale the impact of social entrepreneurship. Business entrepreneurship and the concept known as social entrepreneurship are clearly divided by a fine line. The contest between these two academic sides rests on the fact the Leadbeater lead faction is the self-evident image they attempt to portray. On the other hand, the other faction has relied on several study reports that often fails to approximate the meaning of the concept. The concept has a wide base for understanding and application and can used to develop a broad spectrum of knowledge. In the United States and United Kingdom, the private sector is the foremost section that is clearly associated with social entrepreneurship. The private sector has made several achievements; these include providing day care pre-school for those under the age of five years (Hockerts, 2006), but the private sector is often accused for their indulgence in profit seeking venture, which is basically the business entrepreneurship. When entrepreneurial organizations are created, that is when the social entrepreneurs are most effective. These organizations must interrelate with the surroundings in a pioneering way. There must be a link between the organization, environment and a social entrepreneur. This implies while Charles Leaderbeater and co feel that the concept has a well-placed meaning that is as clear as day and night, the opposing camp feels that the concept lacks real or imagined legitimacy on its meaning. However, pointing out the work of organisations such as the Melinda-Gates foundation, the proponents of the social entrepreneurship in reality counter the non-legitimacy group perfectly. People throughout the world do not belong to the same standard of living, and while others enjoy the very best of life, the majority languish from a non access to even the most basic needs. In the last few years, the need to meet such basic needs has moved from discussion in backroom and academic corridors to a high level, and global dialogues that has attracted celebrities, activists and philanthropists. Organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have pumped billions of dollars assisting millions of families have access to basic needs and sanitation in the developing countries. These efforts truly capture the essence of the concept social entrepreneurship, and that the present generation of social entrepreneurs are inspired to continue those that need their help, as they are aware that basic needs require an all rounded approach to ensure complete dependence by the people. These kinds of social entrepreneurship models seem relevant in the developing nations, but would seem unsuitable in the developed countries of Europe. The question that lingers on the minds of very many people is the best social entrepreneurship model that fits the developed nations. Biogas waste system can be very relevant in the favela slums in Brazil, but would seem awkward when built in Europe. According to Drucker, entrepreneurs are not necessarily agents of change but they are committed and canny exploiters of change, and the entrepreneur always looks for change, responds to it and does the exploitation as an opportunity. Business entrepreneurship can be used as agents of change in the society, but people often argue that they can lead to a social impact. However, this is not always the case, as there are businesses that assist in enhancing social improvement in the society, but the net effect is always negative. For instance, alcohol, tobacco, and such like businesses that assist in job creation, but ultimately injure the community in the end. They demonstrate courage throughout the innovation period whereby they bear the burden of risk and staring failure. This often calls for entrepreneurs to take very big risks and do things others tend to think that they are not wise or maybe not possible to do. (Mair, Robinson and Hockerts, 2006) They possess the fortitude to drive their solutions, which are so creative through the market adoption and fruition. There is no idea of an entrepreneur succeeds without several and major setbacks, or unexpected turns. They have to be able to find their way creatively around these barriers and setbacks. The survival of the idea and the success moves beyond the entrepreneur and the original entrepreneurial venture. In order for British to be able to deal effectively with the social and other demands, the welfare system had to be reformed. Social innovations would be a major contribution to this. This could be creative, new and imaginative community initiatives made by the enterprising people. Some entrepreneurs are seasonal and successful at the same time. This is shown mostly by the fast growing businesses (Mair et al., 2006). Most of them just wish to put something back to the society maybe before and after they have retired from their normal duties or at time when they are less committed. What they start at times is what one is experienced in or that which they just have an idea. They are people on a voyage and of self-discovery and are often driven by their idea. Ordinary people can achieve very extraordinary things when they focus on the task and remain committed. There is need to develop new forms of social capital innovatively. This in turn helps the less fortunate people and encourages them to set greater attainable goals and have control over their lives. Social capital in this context means the creation of tangible and intangible community-based assets, which would not exist if otherwise. Tangible here would be buildings, support networks whereas the intangible would be reputation and respect. The challenge requires an individual who makes a difference by seeing the good side of the opportunity and getting on with it. In areas where welfare state is unwilling or unable to fund the people, contributions are made (Mair et al., 2006). In other cases, services are provided more effectively and efficiently than they would have been provided in the hands of the government or the state. There are community-based entrepreneurs who are persistent and hard working. They grow to neighbourhood, national level and finally they may grow as much as acquiring international status. Businesses that start locally and remain there are simply due to no or less commitment. There are people who do different actions and reactions all towards a new idea that they have. Some identify the gap and the related opportunity. Others create an imagination and vision into their answer. Some think of the resources needed and they secure them. Others are able to handle the inherent risks and to overcome the challenges and obstacles. Some are able to introduce the necessary systems for controlling the undertaking. Most of the initiatives are successful because they are related to the needs.While trying to create jobs in areas that are deprived, we first consider the endeavours that will bring the business. Using grants and other contributions, social entrepreneurship has been on its notch to set up businesses. There is always an assumption that social rejuvenation and the economic are intertwined. Urban entrepreneurs recently have been attached to entrepreneurs who start businesses in deprived inner cities. This is what this research referred to as giving back to the community where you were born and brought up. Some businesses have common and environmental culture, which is different from the contribution made by businesses, which donate profits. Body shop is a most important exponent in its own distinctive way. The scales are the big charities that provide assistance and support for particular groups and causes. The growing community foundations that benefit money to small initiatives and find it difficult for fund raising also qualify. The groups set to provide help; counselling and advice are smaller and on a local scale. Councils for citizens’ advice bureau and voluntary services fit here. We always find that groups that are a focused are sent to deal with bereavement, financial advice, certain illnesses such as cancer and many more. All projects need a base. This is the key resource for creating the capital intrinsic in the proposal. Entrepreneurs through context-dependent, economic and social perspectives and processes create new organizations. Every organization is created for growth. Once it starts to grow, it creates pressure and strains that tend to create unforeseen problems. Social entrepreneurs do not sit to enjoy their good work but instead they are always very restless. The vital organizational imperatives are satisfied and created by growth. The energy and enthusiasm of various people is what builds the organization. In order to attract and motivate these people, they ought to be given challenges and new opportunities. Motivators do not include money and fame but the only motive force is the pleasure and excitement to achieve. An organization has to grow and develop constantly for it to provide a series of new opportunities. However, growth brings a number of difficult issues. Its mission sets an organization’s purpose and by determining the activities, it will invest in. The mission must be revised by the organization in a creative approach. It is often very hard in busy and financially stretched organizations. All the same, the management team must find a way of getting the people involved with the project incorporate the new sense of mission. This process is often very risky. The management must fully consult properly before presenting the mission. The procedure should not be too formal lest it gets cumbersome. The other risk might be, another group in the organization finding the mission and creating its own propaganda. In entrepreneurial organizations, there are new products released to the consumers daily. This happens as the organization tries to respond to the emerging client needs. Additionally, developing a wide range of goods carries risks (Dhliwayo, 2014). The risk comes in this way, most of the effort and time is channelled to the new service at the expense of the routine or the already existing activities. Conclusion The discourse on the social entrepreneurship is a healthy one that had aided in providing meaning to the term that has been widely given different definitions. However, most scholarly debate is premised on rhetorical discussion that is devoid of empirical evidence. In science empirical proof often give credence to hugely debated theories and hypotheses, however, this concept is different, as pinning it on a single thought has proved elusive. In truth, showing that scholars debate as rhetoric seem much more like a rebuke. Nonetheless, the idea must be found to be tenable an understandable if scholars resort to represent the idea that us untrue, and this becomes a clear contrast to the reality. The idea that two groups of scholars debating a concept can be thought of as two sides of the coin, where each side faces a different direction, yet at the same time, it is just the same coin. Bibliography Barinaga E. 2013. Politicising Social Entrepreneurship - Three Social Entrepreneurial Rationalities Toward Social Change. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship.4, 347-372. Bettinelli, C. 2014. Family Entrepreneurship: A Developing Field. FNT in Entrepreneurship, 10, 161-236. Carsrud, A. and Brännback, M. 2007. Entrepreneurship. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Pres Coster., H. 2011. Forbes List of the Top 30 Social Entrepreneurs. Forbes. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/helencoster/2011/11/30/forbes-list-of-the-top-30-social-entrepreneurs/. Accessed March 17 2015. Grenier, P. 2011. Social entrepreneurship in the UK: from rhetoric to reality?. An Introduction to Social Entrepreneurship: Voices, Preconditions, Contexts, 174. Karlsson, C., Johansson, B. and Stough, R. 2012. Entrepreneurship, social capital and governance. Cheltenham: Northampton, MA. Light, P. 2008. The search for social entrepreneurship. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Lumpkin, G. and Katz, J. 2011. Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Bradford: Emerald Group Pub. Mair, J., Robinson, J. and Hockerts, K. 2006. Social entrepreneurship. Basingstoke [England]: Palgrave Macmillan. Praszkier, R. and Nowak, A. 2012. Social entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sampson, D. 2011. Social entrepreneurship. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Special Issue of Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. 2012. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 3(1), pp.113-114. Sheth, N. 2010. The Social Context of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 192, 99-108. Sheth, N. 2010. The Social Context of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 192, 99-108. Zhang, D. and Swanson, L. 2014. Linking Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainability. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5, 175-191 Read More