No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
ABSTRACTAs with evaluating the potential of a new entrepreneurial firm, criteria should be in place to gauge the potential for success for Social Enterprises (SE). Unfortunately, most of the decisions to start (and support) a SE have been impacted significantly by an emotional attachment of the job to be done (in these cases, fixing a problem). It is argued that a better approach to success would be to base these startup decisions on the Solution and the nature of the Who is impacted by the problem rather than the gravity of the JTBD. Thus, a preliminary inquiry into creating a model of evaluating SE startups is proposed with a goal of focusing on those enterprises that have the highest potential for success in creating the greatest good for society is proposed.INTRODUCTIONA clear understanding of Social Enterprises (SE) and Social Entrepreneurs has been allusive. This lack of clarity is impacted first by the itself and then further exasperated by the universal application of the term entrepreneur as the agent of change within those organizations. It almost seems that the SE is falling into the same trap that the overall field of entrepreneurship found (and maybe even to this day finds) itself in at the last two decades of the twentieth century. Not recognizing a standard unit of observation, many researchers have taken the shotgun approach in defining and supporting many just causes.This paper is an attempt to provide an exploratory study in clarifying the and offering a platform of future inquiry into organization entities associated with Social Enterprises. In the remainder of this manuscript, a clearer framework of how to define SEs will be provided along with potential areas of future research. Social missions are extremely valuable for our society and those individuals that are negatively impacted by various environmental maladies. If, however, we do not understand the makeup of these organizations we can neither create as great an impact on solving these ills nor sustain support in doing so.In order to accomplish the goals outlined above, it is necessary to first revisit the of SEs to determine if there exists a more directed and understandable definition. In addition, a typology for exploring entrepreneurial firms in general will be discussed and offered as a means of clearly identifying the types of firms engaged in enterprises as well as how to best focus our attention on those that have the potential for the greatest impact on society.SOCIAL ENTERPRISES (SEs)In offering the most accepted to date of social entrepreneurship, Dess (2001) clearly admitted that a problem still existed in defining the phenomenon. According to Dess, the concept still means many different things to different audiences. This is not surprising in that the SE is seen as not-for-profits, purpose ventures, for profit development banks, hybrid organizations mixing for and not-for-profit organizations.Dess choose to apply several principles associated with giants (namely Schumpeter and Drucker) in the field of entrepreneurship to better understand the concept. Using previously established premises, Dess held that the entrepreneurship created value, were change agents, looked for opportunities, and shifted economic resources. And, that starting a enterprise in itself was not necessarily entrepreneurial. Based upon these concepts his idealized definition was:Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the sector by:1. Adopting a mission to create and sustain value (not just private value),2. Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission,3. Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning,4. Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and5. Exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created, (p. …
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.