After reading Jim Collin's writing, it seems that driving social change requires visionary individuals in each facet of the collective venture that have the discipline to carry out the vision.  Each member of the collective action is a visionary individual, whether they come from a nonprofit or for profit background.I think that this is especially true with the issue of growth and fufilling local needs.  An organization would have to have staff members that are dedicated to their designated purpose in one or the other, yet have the ability, creativity and vision to remain focused on the organization's mission.

I beg to differ with you on more than a few points, but let me start with your controversy #1.
First, let me say that I have no affiliation with Ashoka, nor do I personally know anyone there, but I have studied their work and am quite familiar with their philosophy.
I don't believe Bill Drayton or anyone at Ashoka would argue that ONLY visionary individuals OR collective action drives social change. Social change is not possible without the absolute presence of BOTH. However, you are confusing activism and cooperation with the term "Social Entrepreneurship" -- essentially the instigators of group or larger scale action. When Ashoka refers to "every one a change maker" they are referring to that rare relentless individual drive to realize that vision that it takes to provoke and persuade others to either join the movement as an activist or cooperate with the new idea so that change actually occurs.
You are selling Ashoka short (to say the least) with your statement that “the problem is embodied in Ashoka.” Ashoka has been the leading the charge for Social Entrepreneurship since 1980 and they have done AMAZING to make the world a better place.  They do have a clue as to what a Social Entrepreneur is and what drives social change.
For anyone wanting to learn more about Ashoka, please go to www.ashoka.org to get the full picture.

About Controversy #2.
Sally Osberg and Roger Martin, CEO and board member of the Skoll Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship (respectively), are absolutely right to try to provide a clear definition of Social Entrepreneurship. It is not the “uniqueness of the field” as much as the “integrity of the term” that is at risk.
As corporations begin “green-washing” and “pink-washing” their products (without any truly tangible impact) in the name of Social Enterprise, the impact of the term becomes diluted and soon it will lose its meaning as a truly innovative, revolutionary, change-provoking concept. This term “Social Entrepreneurship” has been around since the early 1970s and people have been working in this field for decades, so it is not up to us to redefine the word this late in the game.
In the case of the honoree at the Skoll World Forum saying that poor people are social entrepreneurs in their own right, I believe he is referring to the intense creativity and resourcefulness they must employ to survive. No one wants to belittle that effort, nor should they. Some poor people may be so creative and driven as to improve their own lives and the lives of others; and they would be social entrepreneurs, but that is not to say that all poor people are social entrepreneurs because they are poor.  Does this make sense?

#3. does a social entrepreneurship venture needs to be able to scale to be considered as such? 

I would say that it does if you want that grant. ;-) Obviously, grantors will want to leverage their grant dollars by “investing” in an idea that is replicable. It seems though that if even a relatively small number of lives are improved through the efforts of an innovative idea by a driven and passionate instigator, then social enterprise was responsible. Just my humble opinion …
And, if it does scale, can it retain the local understanding necessary to serve the communities it aims to help?
I think it the critical component here is who is implementing the model and will they take the time to gain the local understanding of each new community.  Also, is the community receptive to help or does it need to be their idea before the will change?

#4. Do social entrepreneurs address root causes or just symptoms of social problems?

Social Entrepreneurs should always attempt to address the root cause first, but if changing the root cause is not possible, then you have to a choice as to how to react. An effective social entrepreneur will figure out a way to make lemonade when the lemons arrive.

5. Is the growing relationship between the nonprofit and for-profit sector a good thing?

It is unless corporations abuse the relationship. For instance, claiming to produce “green” products when it is difficult to find anything environmentally positive about it. This is a relationship that needs more accountability and standard measured requirements before claims are made. It is happening, but can’t happen soon enough.

Hi,
Thanks to all for an insightful and much needed discussion indeed.
And thanks to Sue Ellen for expressing pretty much exactly my thoughts on the subject ! :o)I would back what she has to say on each of these points, but to put it in my own words and contribute my own two cents :

1. Do visionary individuals or collective action drive social change?

Definitely both - and as all here have remarked they are inseparable aspects - but I would argue that the very word "social" in "social change" points to the heart of the matter : it is a collective question over and above anything else.
Change is effective only when embodied by those who change, individuals can be amazing sources of inspiration, facilitators and pedagogues, they can indeed have visionary insights, but all this is just one element in the bigger picture of collective change.
Any authentic "vision" in this sense must take root in the collective reality and context, be aimed at the collective well-being, and be implemented by the interested parties themselves - the very body of society - *all* of us.
There is of course plenty of room for individual creativity and initiative in this, it is just a question of frame of mind.

2. How narrowly should "social entrepreneurship" be defined and to whom should the term be applied?

I agree that what is at stake is the integrity of the term more than anything else, having people deviate the meaning of it to serve their own private purposes - which links this issue to the one on the partnerships with private business entities.
It's a fine line to tread and another critical and delicate question here is the relationship between the "means" and "ends", what ends justify what means ? It seems quite widely accepted - and I would tend to agree - that it's good to go by the understanding that the ends are already in the means, just as a tree is in its seed (an idea popularized by Gandhi, who certainly had a certain grasp of what "social change" involves). I would tend to be quite wary of any borderline means (ethically speaking) justified by a greater end.

And concerning the poor, I would need to look closer at the context in which they were defined as social entrepreneurs in their own right, but I'd agree that although they are absolutely to be taken into account as potentially major actors in the solution, they can't all be said to embodie the essential values of social entrepreneurship "by definition". Even micro-credit has been seen to have its limits, although it's an amazing tool and a great argument for any who still need to be convinced that the poor can play a part in freeing themselves from poverty.

3. & 4. Can an organization grow and still meet the local community needs? (And) do social entrepreneurs address root causes or just symptoms of social problems?

As far as I'm concerned, these two questions basically deal with the same thing. The key slogan here is the much repeated "think global, act local", to which I would add "think long term, and act now".
The way I understand it the relationship between global/long term and local/short term is the following:

* A number of major issues that Social and Solidarity-based Economy propose to deal with are impossible to solve on a local scale because they are systemic, interrelated to a vast number of other factors and issues. The complexity involved in dealing with any of these requires very well articulated action in many fields and on many levels simultaneously. Without a global/long term perspective, local and short term action runs the risk of wasting a lot of time, energy and ressources, reminding me of the classical Tex Avery or Tom & Jerry situation where one character hammers a nail in one place and another pops out somewhere else, over and over again. So the question of "acting at the adequate scale" is crucial.

* Nonetheless, there *is* no global/long term action without local/short term action, the last literally composing the bricks of the former. Another way of seeing this is that any *real* impact is expressed locally depending on the context, and so any truly impacting action must take local conditions into account.

* Additionnally, local/short term and more or less individual initiatives can be truly creative and sometimes offer a quick and perfectly adapted answer to a local/immediate problem where institutionalised action can be slow and full of constraints. On the other hand, the use of institutionalised action is in avoiding circumscribed groups having to rely only on their *own* creativity, faced whith reinventing the wheel every second day.

To sum it up, I'd say that there has to be an intelligent and flexible coordination of both local and global action, and that the reason for this is precisely in order to ensure that the action is pertinent in the bigger picture, takes a real part in addressing the root problems, all the while keeping local initiative, creativity and flexibility maximum.

Probably the best "institutionalisation" would be merely systematized communication of who is doing what, where and how, and pooling of crossed-analyses, so that people can easily situate their action in the larger framework...

5. Is the growing relationship between the nonprofit and for-profit sector a good thing?

Nothing much to add to waht's already been said about this.
Thank God ! :o)

Best regards.

finn

Thank you SueEllen for your passionate defense of Ashoka! I do work for Ashoka so I want to add just a couple of thoughts.

First, Nathaniel is a great friend and supporter of ours and has published stories on many of our initiatives, Fellows, and Youth Venturers. We really appreciate his great coverage of the Social Entrepreneurship space, and I welcome this opportunity to clarify a common misconception about Ashoka, the seeming contradiction between identifying and supporting visionary social entrepreneurs as Fellows and our mission to create an Everyone A Changemaker world.

I agree with SueEllen that rather than embodying the "problem" here we are leading towards the synthesis of these two models of change. After 29 years of electing over 2,000 incredible social entrepreneurs as Fellows we have been able to identify some key themes and commonalities in their work. And the most significant is this: great social entrepreneurs empower their communities, and invite and inspire those around them to become changemakers themselves.

So while visionary entrepreneurs are crucial to engineering transormation so too is a community-focused model that provides an ladder of engagement and distributes power and implementation to those most affected. It was this observation that led us to adopt the Everyone A Changemaker tagline, becuase that is truly the change we, and so many of our Fellows, are working to bring about. Put another way: visionary community leaders inspire others to become leaders and realize their own power to create change.

I've got a quote on my wall from David Bornstein that inspires me and, I think, illuminates this dynamic:

"Social entrepreneurs identify resources where others only see problems. They view the villagers as the solution, not the passive beneficiary. They begin with the assumption of competence and unleash resources in the communities they're serving."

Cheers!

Tom

Nathaniel you have done a nice job synthesizing a few of the controversies in this emerging sector - thank you. 

Here are few thoughts from those of us working with SiG, the Social Innovation Generation Team at the MaRS Discovery District in Toronto.

1. Do visionary individuals or collective action drive social change?

The answer has to be both.  Individuals often start with the idea but it is of no value if it is only about them.  They need to engage others, get them to believe in the power of collective action to make change.  Ashoka is wonderful and so is Skoll and many others who work to recognize the value of individuals and their ability to engage and inspire others.  But this movement does itself a disservice if it becomes about hero worship alone, especially at this stage of its development.

2. How narrowly should “social entrepreneurship” be defined and to whom should the term be applied?

Sally and Roger make great points and give us due caution about what could happen but again, at this stage of development we are prepared to open the tent and invite many in.  One of the great moments for us in doing this is when someone literally declares "wow, I'm a social entrepreneur". It incredibly empowering for people to feel they have a sense of community and they are not alone in their efforts to make money AND change the world. 

3. Can an organization grow and still meet the local community needs?

Yes, but the work that needs to be done is in understanding the essence of the innovation.  What is it that is being scaled?  Dr Frances Westley of SiG@Waterloo is working with the other SiG members to design a series of workshops to help us get at this understanding, which then makes scaling "in the local context" a worthwhile exercise.

4. Do social entrepreneurs address root causes or just symptoms of social problems?

Ideally it is root causes but those are few and far between.  Social entrepreneurs often tackle challenges with policy implications yet the skills to change policy may not be those of the instigator of the social innovation.  Many different people with different skills sets are required to achieve change at the root cause level.

5. Is the growing relationship between the nonprofit and for-profit sector a good thing?

Again, the cautions listed are well worth noting but everyday we are greeted by young social entrepreneurs, mostly in their 20's who are keen to make money and make a difference and they are rejecting the for-profit, not-for-profit distinction... and more power to them.  It is not our place to force them into our understanding of existing systems but rather to encourage them to find structures that work.  Personally, having dedicated my career to the NFP field, I'm encouraged by many I meet in the FP world who feel the way I do about building a movement of social entrepreneurs that is way beyond CSR.

Thanks again Nathaniel, great discussion.

Allyson

SiG@MaRS

I am a self described social entrepreneur. I love the idea and what it stands for. Its such a new field that yes a lot of it is still up in the air but to me that doesn't really matter. What matters is that people are doing something to try and make a difference.

1. Do visionary individuals or collective action drive social change?

I see a lot of people answered both and thats what I believe as well. There is a lot that I want to do to help business in latin america but I know I can't do it alone. I hope that I can grow my idea and get a group of people together interested in solving the same problem.

2. How narrowly should “social entrepreneurship” be defined and to whom should the term be applied?

To me social entrepreneurship means driving social change by using solid business practices. I don't want to be a charity but I do want to make a difference. I love companies like Kiva.org. These real business principles is what drove growth in the US, why should the rest of the world be any different?

3. Can an organization grow and still meet the local community needs?

This is something I think about a lot. My answer is: I'll let you know when I get there! I'm not at a point where my idea is scaling and this is a problem but I am aware of it.

4. Do social entrepreneurs address root causes or just symptoms of social problems?

I have spent 12 years traveling to Central America and during that time I have gotten a good sense of some of the challenges people there are facing. I am trying really hard to address what I see is the root cause of many of the problems down there. I'm not sure you can be 100% about what the root cause is. Either way I'm all about digging deeper and getting to the heart of the issue.

5. Is the growing relationship between the nonprofit and for-profit sector a good thing?

Honestly I think it is. I feel like too many non-profits don't focus on efficiency and improvement. At the same time I think some businesses doesn't focus on doing positive things. That being said there are ways this could be bad. But overall I think we need more to happen in the middle where both social change and business meet.

Lots of great stuff here!