In what way is Social Entrepreneurship ‘complex’?

The case of ‘Front Line’

Gemma Donnelly-Cox,Mary Lee Rhodes

Trinity College Dublin

What is meant by social entrepreneurship?

• “Social” – behaviour patterns and/or outcomes that are oriented towards human needs

• “Entrepreneurship” – innovation, value-creation, ‘creative destruction’

• Studies / theories of social entrepreneurship focus on the type of value created (Dees 1998), the characteristics of entrepreneurs (Leadbeater 1987), the actions of entrepreneurs (Young 1983) and the context(s) of entrepreneurial activity (Schoonhaven & Romanelli 2001 – check Yamada)

Fit with / advantage of complexity theory?

SystemEnvironment

Agents Interactions

Outcomes

Features:- Initial conditions?

- Identification of emergence

- Adaptation and co-evolution of agents & system

- Feedback process

- Identification of bifurcation points

Complex adaptive systems model

-Factors-Rules

Questions to ask in case interpretation System scope: organisational level, timeframe? Agents: individuals, groups, organisations,

industries? Interactions/actions: actions and relationships

among agents / actions over time? Rules: nature of the rules / institutions that govern

agent behaviour? Outcomes: agent objectives, impact on other

agents, learning, impact on environment? Environment: what are the factors that agents

consider when making decisions – how are these factors interpreted? Changed over time?

‘Front Line’ case System scope: single organisation – 10 years Agents: entrepreneur, staff members, human rights

defenders, existing NGOs, business leaders, policy-makers, policy influencers (e.g., Bono)

Interactions/actions: ‘stages’ of action/interaction (relevant actions vary by stage) – driven by network competency of entrepreneur

Rules: board composition, performance measures, contacts with policy-makers, Irish legislation

Outcomes: numbers of HRDs supported (multiplier effect), level of material support, information created/disseminated, event visibility

Environment: Issue legitimacy, funding sources, economic wealth in Ireland, lack of action to address needs

Stages of the ‘system’

1998 1999 2007 2008200620052004200320022000Paris summit

2001

Front Lineis created

‘Platform’No. 1

‘Platform’No. 2

‘Platform’No. 3

‘Platform’No. 4

Platform1

Platform2

Platform3

Platform4

The Performance LandscapeHuman Rights sector

Exploration

Exploitation

Performance: - issue legitimacy / awareness- access to resources- impact on / value to target group - effective / efficient service system

( performance )

‘Complex’ Social Entrepreneurship

• Initial conditions: issue ‘pull’, moral/legal legitimacy, funding (performance peak appears)

• Self-organisation (actions): characteristics of entrepreneur, planting / nurturing / harvesting relationships, exploration/exploitation of landscape

• Interactions: resource exchange, info collection / dissemination, board creation / management

• Feedback / learning: Dublin ‘platform’, establishing objectives

• Adaptation / co-evolution: HRDs and Front Line, other NGOs?

• Emergence: new performance peak(s), HRD network