Who? Me??

I really do not see how is it any different from any other enterprise? I looked up the wiki page for Social Entrepreneurship, here’s what it says -

Social entrepreneurship is the work of a social entrepreneur. A social entrepreneur is someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social change (a social venture). Whereas a business entrepreneur  typically measures performance in profit and return, a social entrepreneur focuses on creating social capital. Thus, the main aim of social entrepreneurship is to further social and environmental goals. However, whilst social entrepreneurs are most commonly associated with the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors, this need not necessarily be incompatible with making a profit.

How in the world is this any different from what a good business does? It recognizes a social problem (read loosely as a problem that the society in general faces), and it solves the problem. For any enterprise, over a period of time there will be performance metrics – profit and return merely build sustainability. These would be needed by the social entrepreneur as well. So what makes it any different? Social capital is also created by enterprises. If you go through any of the annual reports that a firm publishes, they have this term – Goodwill.

If good will is not social capital, then what is? I think social entrepreneurship is just a term invented by hacks to make themselves feel good. Or maybe its just a marketing gimmick for generating funds.

PS – Before you hit the comment button to rant, do not misread me. All I am saying is that any good business is as good as any “social entrepreneurship”, then why make the difference? Is social entrepreneurship the new green?

Back in August 2006, I had written a post on Dot Com Bust 2.0 (you can read it at the link provided, sadly rediff BLOGS has a bad way of storing posts (week-wise instead of it being individual posts).

Revisiting that post was an interesting exercise, an excerpt -

Do we see history repeating itself? A sudden surge in this Dot Com 2.0 demand, people are already teeming in to cash-in on this new opportunity. Do I start off a firm of my own and try to do the same. Is this risk / venture enough to sustain me through the impending bust? During my induction at TechMahindra, there was a fellow from the top management who was wizened enough to predict that the next bust is going to come in the year 2009. We laughed it off back then, I am not laughing now. Maybe, the dot com bust might relapse, and why not? Fortunately, IT in India is not just about web development anymore. We will pass through this. But will my dream of starting off on my own do the same?

Full marks and respect for that top executive.

Facebook keeps changing its layout, looks, etc ever so slightly and so constantly that most users do not even notice the changes … until it hits them smack on the head. That’s what I like about these FB Apps, revisit the games after 3 months, and the game has also evolved … it has got more items, more plots … somehow it has become more interesting.

That’s why when I started playing Hero World, I couldnt help but notice that instead of having micro transactions through pay-pal or some such payment gateway, the game also had Facebook credits as a currency source. On further digging, I found that Facebook is offering users to buy Facebook Credits. Users can then exchange these credits with different applications.

Instead of carrying out micro transactions within games, now we can carry them through Facebook itself. Good to see a definitive revenue stream other than eyeballs and ads.

It’s times like these when supporting a good cause gives you fulfillment. When you make a difference by adding to the cause … not monetarily, not through force but through faith.

A friend recently made the leap of faith from Windows to Ubuntu, you can read her first hand review here. It does include the slight apprehension, the initial teething problems … but the story also has elements which make it a good technology script … the need, the learning curve and the triumph!! Here’s an excerpt -

It’s been a month since I first grappled with the overly sensitive mouse pointer on my brand new OS. Having solved that and many other problems (whether by exploring the functionalities, or plain screaming murder at Prasad and Ankit – our IT-literate friends), I seem to have adjusted surprisingly well to it. Phantoms of Linux have turned out to be bigger than Linux itself. Its fast. Its intelligent (use it and you’ll see what I mean by that). It has multiple workspaces. Which means you can chat and browse on another workspace without those irritating colleagues, who have the habit of peering into your screen and shaking their judgmental heads, ever finding out! So far, so good!

The point I am trying to make is that often people will sit on the fence when their knowledge about a technical product is low, the goal then is not to push the product, but to give as much information as possible but wait for the user to make the leap of faith.

I see this happen at work almost every day … we call it creative faith. The technology involved may not be related to computers, but it can be as abstruse if not more. So, the next time you are involved in selling a complex solution, try some faith instead.

Yesterday I met some friends over snacks at Candies (in Bandra, do look it up if you are in the area). A friend of mine has recently switched to work as a manager in a reputed firm, and he was overall happy with his job (work from home and all the perks).

Then he said something which sparked off this post, he said the amount of money the firm wastes in their day-to-day activities is insane. At first it seemed as if he was talking about how the organization has money to spare … but then to drive his point home, he gave examples. Inane but true. A lot of us are willing to put in that extra buck just so that everything that can go wrong won’t.

The design has to be perfect, the models have to be dressed in a certain fashion, the product has to be the best. In creating these spaces, we are de-risking ourselves … that’s what I like to tell myself. But are we?

Is the price of failure so high that we don’t take action and let others do what needs to be done? So what’s the price of failure for different people? For a person who has nothing to loose, its zero. A start-up for example can afford to go in some communities and have it misrepresented … its ok, bygones can be bygones for them. But take a Coca Cola or a Pepsi (not that these are the aforementioned organizations), and you suddenly have to think about ten thousand other factors. Not a freeing thought, is it?

Would it help if one could see the price of failure as zero?

No, I deliberately wrote it as Hell instead of Bell.

Managers who have run teams must surely know this model. A friend of mine works in one of the top IT organizations this country has, every year he worries incessantly about how he is going to survive appraisals. Not his own, he is consistently in the top 10% of the firm, but his teams.

They carry out appraisals using the bell curve in this organization … that means in any project team, someone has to be top performer, someone has to be average and someone has to be in the bottom 10% … survival of the fittest in this corporate jungle … that’s the rule.

The problem with this rule is that managers are forced to take under-performers and average team members as opposed to top performers. This is so, because when appraisal time comes, he cannot appraise everyone as a top performer. So if he has more than 10% of his team putting their hearts into the project, then after a year, someone will get an unfair assessment … someone will be disappointed in his superiors. Someone will get disillusioned. And that someone would be reporting to the manager who appraised him.

The only solution available for the manager then, is to select a mediocre team and hope that they deliver the project. An entire organization that runs on mediocrity!

My question to HR personnel then are two-fold -

1. Why the bell curve?
2. What will you do if the curve becomes skewed (towards the top performer side)?

Or No pain, no gain … the adage holds, is what empirical data says. A working paper by Harvard Business School presents its findings on human capital, performance incentives and ownership models.

Do different kinds of firm ownership drive the adoption of different managerial practices? HBS professor Raffaella Sadun and coauthors focus on the difference between the two most common ownership modes, family firms and firms that are widely held, namely that have no dominant owner. They find that the greater weight attached by family firms to benefits from control induces a conflict of interest between family-firm owners and high-ability, risk-tolerant managers. Key concepts include:

• Family firms systematically offer low-powered incentive contracts to external managers compared with widely held firms. The differences are economically large.
• Where incentives are more powerful, managers exert more effort, are paid more, and are more satisfied.
• Firms that offer high-powered incentives are associated with better performance. This result holds even after controlling for the type of ownership.
• Economies where family firms prevail because of institutional or cultural constraints are also economies where the demand for highly skilled, risk-tolerant managers languishes.

What this study suggests, is that to have high performance managers, organizations should employ the high powered incentives (this may not be as simple as cutting the current CTC of an individual into fixed and variable components). The last finding suggests that economies (and even societies) where family firms are prevalent (take Marwaris or Sindhis), the risk-appetite may be lesser. The first set of findings is also interesting since it is related to satisfaction.

So the next time you are considering a job, maybe these tips might help you evaluate that job slightly better -

1. Is there a variable component, is the calculation of that component completely transparent?
2. Will you be empowered enough to take risks and get the job done?
3. How mediocrity based is the leadership? (As in, is the leadership attracting the best talent, or the talent which can be ordered around)
4. Is your work ecology risk tolerant Or does it always stick to the safe path?

Copy as in the written text. Often organizations do not realize how important a properly worded message can be. If the communications department does a muck-up of the job, then the intended audience misinterprets the messaging.

At work, we were discussing the entire content cleaning and re-wording of our marketing communications. Anyone who has been to our flagship portal would realize that the learning curve required to understand the concept and use the product is quite steep. During this discussion, we learnt the Study Technology that Scientology proposes. I thought that I might share this with you.

Scientology states that there are 3 barriers which stop an individual from studying a particular topic -

1. Misunderstood Word – If an ambiguous or a complex word is used in the message, then that is a deterrent to the individual. Jargon comes in this space. Look at the text you have written from your audience’s perspective, if there are any words which could be misinterpreted, then replace them with simpler words.
2. Steep Gradient – If the student is expected to perform new actions, without getting enough time to learn from his previous actions, then this results in confusion. You can see this problem with most failed games, the tutorials are too small or are too confusing. Give them space to assimilate new actions, try to setup a practice play of the new actions. Games like World of Warcraft excel at these things.
3. Lack of Mass – Attempting to teach something without anything concrete is difficult. Imagine trying to teach an abstract concept to a student without any solid examples.

For mainstream adoption, if these things are not done, then the level of  energy and commitment required for an individual to take up your content would be too high. It might attract like minded people such as yourself, but it certainly wont attract the masses.

Looking back, when I apply these to our own tour to the site, I realize that there are still colossal huge gaps to be filled.

I walk into a brick and mortar store (say a book store), browse through some books, finally decide on my selections, head to the counter, make the payment and come out a happy customer. All that the vendor needs to do here is –

   1. ensure that he is well stocked with books I like
   2. have a search mechanism in place to find the right book for me
   3. have someone manning the counter

The beauty here is that if the book were torn or something, I do get a chance to examine the goods before buying them. I decide to buy the goods only after I say its ok, who would I trust more than myself? Thus, I perceive the transaction as fair, and I pay the book store and head home.

Now consider a second scenario, I walk into a bookstore, and I inform the vendor that I am looking for, say a Jack Reacher novel. The vendor shows me his collection, but much to my chagrin the particular title I am looking for is not with him. The attendant assures me that they have run out of stock and will restock in 5 days. However, they would be more than happy to inform me once the book arrives. I hesitantly leave my no. with them and think that it’s good to have book stores who inform their customers about books they want.

Apply the same paradigm to an online shop. Rarely would I come to this shop for idle browsing, if I do have a title in mind, then I would be interested in skipping directly to it. If at this juncture, the store informs me that it is out of stock and will not accept my order, however they will be more than glad to inform me when the book is in stock – I won’t be that pleased. I will grumble and grudgingly close the browser.

If the decision making involvement is the same, if the outcome is the same, then why the difference in behaviors?

While at work today, an interesting discussion cropped up. Whether there is any correlation between Employability and Self-Esteem. Although a lot of work has been done on these two topics independently, I could hardly come up with anything which tied these two together. Interestingly, many firms have tried to come up with Employability Index and Self-Esteem Index, so why not see the behavior of these two?

Before we laugh off Wally, I want to say at the highest point of Employability, the Self-Esteem is the true identity of the individual’s skill sets. It is very difficult to find people like these, whose estimate of their self-worth is equal to the actual difference they make. I remember a study that I had participated, in a sample size of 40 individuals, only 2 of them were close to their self-worth, the rest either thought very highly of themselves or undersold themselves.

Where would you choose to be?