Chief hippie?

I can’t decide my take on this “chief guru of life change” executive naming trend.  Some of the most exciting emerging social ventures seem to enjoy coming up with creative yet somewhat ridiculous-sounding titles for the people who run their companies. This was brought to light by a somewhat recent McKinsey interview of Adam Werbach, who seems to know a lot about this stuff.  He highlighted two cool sustainability-focused for-profits, method and Seventh Generation.  Seventh Generation’s founder calls himself the “chief inspired protagonist” (seriously?), and method’s is the “chief greenskeeper” (seriously.).  These guys are arguably two of the major players in the triple bottom line/social venture/sustainability space, and this is what they call themselves?  I know they’re run out of San Francisco and Vermont and all, but really.  I’m trying to figure out what the next guy down gets called – vice inspired protagonist?  Semi-inspired protagonist?  Chief inspired realist?  The hierarchy could get really confusing.

In an industry like social enterprise that is trying to be more professional, more respected and a bigger player, I would expect this kind of stunt to be laughed off stage.  What kind of private sector CEO would call herself a chief inspiration nurturer?  What kind of investor would give his money to the chief flowerchild?  It makes me angry because it seems that some of the best emerging social ventures are making light of the space and encouraging mockery at best, reinforcement of a flaky and poorly managed sector image at worst.

But then, despite myself, there’s something I unwittingly like about this fad.  (Don’t tell my future investors.)  There’s something Google-esque about it.  It implies a work environment where incredibly bright minds come up with groundbreaking ideas over fooseball and beanbag chairs.  (Perhaps this has its own challenges, but it seems to have worked for tech.)  And maybe that’s what attracts the bright minds to the social sector – the idea of business without business as usual.

Linguistics

Where better to start a new blog than with a boring commentary on lexicon?


This whole social venture space seems to have some real issues with standardizing its terminology.  Is it social enterprise, social entrepreneurship, social ventures, social business, earned income, socially responsible business, corporate social responsibility...?  Oh and my favorite - "nonprofit entrepreneur."  Isn't that an oxymoron?


What's the difference between any of these terms?  Fine, it's a new field, but we really ought to be clear on what we're talking about - I have enough trouble explaining this stuff to my mother without a constantly changing lexicon.


Jerr Boschee at the Institute for Social Entrepreneurs actually tried.  I won't say I agree with all his definitions, but I commend the effort.  And his "five essential concepts" aren't bad:

"Dependency":  The traditional business model for nonprofits, in which they depend solely or almost entirely on charitable contributions and public sector subsidies, with earned income either non-existent or minimal

"Sustainability":  The ability to fund the future of a nonprofit through a mixed revenue stream -- a  combination of earned income, charitable contributions and public sector subsidies

"Self-sufficiency":  The ability to fund the future of a nonprofit through earned income alone

"Social entrepreneur":  Any person, in any sector, who runs a social enterprise

"Social enterprise":  Any organization, in any sector, that uses earned income strategies to pursue a double or triple bottom line, either alone (as a social sector business) or as part of a mixed revenue stream that includes charitable contributions and public sector subsidies

Full 80-term glossary available here - let's hope he continues to update it.