Tuesday, June 17, 2008
M&A
my experience has been that SO many people are loving this social enterprise/market principles and strategies in the social sector ideathat there is a lot of duplication and a lot of opportuniststhe social sector needs a deluge of M&A if you ask me.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Democracy in America
In my undergraduate coursework I took an interdisciplinary course on civic engagement which included a practicum component, that for me, included a stint at the Claremont Chamber of Commerce working on their "Leadership Claremont" program. This is where I really became friends with Alexis de Tocqueville and where I picked up an interest in social capital--something I had long understood without knowing the name for it.
Now that this interest has developed into a particular focus on leadership, social enterprise, and the developing world I find myself returning again to his observations on what makes this country tick. I find it so interesting that a concept like social enterprise has taken root and spread all over the world--when at its core the premise is also so American (in the sense that Tocqueville observed)--the entreprenuerally spirit and the desire to create formal associations. In large part, it is probably a much greater reflection of globalization and the spread of free markets. But it is also what has made the research regarding the subject proliferate here.
In “What Hath God Wrought,” Daniel Walker Howe's history of 19th-century America, he quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson as telling a meeting of the Mercantile Library Association in 1844 that “America is the country of the future. It is a country of beginnings, of projects, of vast designs and expectations.” I think grounding the discipline in both this spirit and other historical antecedents, philosophical and programmatic (some of William James' writing on pragmatism, John Rawls on justice) could add a rich texture to the resulting strategies, prescriptions, and theories that will dominate the next layer of research on social enterprise.
It is important as this discussion unfolds to both tap into these underlying philosophies but to also be open to shifting course and adopting strategies that maybe aren't as culturally "natural" in the United States. One of the observations of social entreprenuers is their tendency to be stand-out leaders with strong visions. Is there a role for leaderless leadership in some organizations or some communities? It will be helpful to ask--what are some other ways of being in the world? It is a wide universe we are all seeking to learn about, how do we push on through repetitive ideas in an often saturated market so that our energies are spent effectively?
Now that this interest has developed into a particular focus on leadership, social enterprise, and the developing world I find myself returning again to his observations on what makes this country tick. I find it so interesting that a concept like social enterprise has taken root and spread all over the world--when at its core the premise is also so American (in the sense that Tocqueville observed)--the entreprenuerally spirit and the desire to create formal associations. In large part, it is probably a much greater reflection of globalization and the spread of free markets. But it is also what has made the research regarding the subject proliferate here.
In “What Hath God Wrought,” Daniel Walker Howe's history of 19th-century America, he quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson as telling a meeting of the Mercantile Library Association in 1844 that “America is the country of the future. It is a country of beginnings, of projects, of vast designs and expectations.” I think grounding the discipline in both this spirit and other historical antecedents, philosophical and programmatic (some of William James' writing on pragmatism, John Rawls on justice) could add a rich texture to the resulting strategies, prescriptions, and theories that will dominate the next layer of research on social enterprise.
It is important as this discussion unfolds to both tap into these underlying philosophies but to also be open to shifting course and adopting strategies that maybe aren't as culturally "natural" in the United States. One of the observations of social entreprenuers is their tendency to be stand-out leaders with strong visions. Is there a role for leaderless leadership in some organizations or some communities? It will be helpful to ask--what are some other ways of being in the world? It is a wide universe we are all seeking to learn about, how do we push on through repetitive ideas in an often saturated market so that our energies are spent effectively?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Chronology Critique
The Institute for Social Entreprenuers (founded and led by Jerr Boschee) issued a draft of a timeline they are compiling titled, "Evolution of the social enterprise industry: A chronology of key events." I found it a useful introduction and it filled in some holes that were missing in my understanding of the history of the development of the idea. Though the authors note that it is a summary of key events that have shaped the industry, a parallel summary with the growth of the academic literature demonstrating linkages to other fields would be helpful. Even searching out the academic literature there seems to be a preponderance of empirical research and practicum-based publishing.
Besides the format being slightly difficult to follow, there does seem to be a surplus of references to Boschee's initiatives. I am not suggesting his work hasn't been important or even catalytic, but it reminds me of Ralph Waldo Emerson's quote, "All history becomes subjective; in other words there is properly no history, only biography."
The historical antecedents noted (courtesy of Jim McClurg) need to be fleshed out a little more extensively. The typology is noted but not the actor or some key examples (i.e. Higher Education (tuition), Monastaries (wine and cheese sales), etc.). I am thinking particularly of the Jesuits as a great example--not only the substance of their entreprenuerial activity but the spirit of it as well. Sherrill Johnson wrote an excellent literature review for the Canadian Centre for Social Entreprenuership in 2000 where she quotes Bornstein who charecterized a social entreprenuer as "...a pathbreaker with a powerful idea, who combines visionary and real world problem-solving creativity, who has a strong ethical fibre and who is totally possesed by his or her vision for change." More thoughts on Jesuits another time.
Lots of good reading mentioned (must assemble massive bibliography!) but a format that tracks academic publications in one color and initiatives in another would be more useful.
My general thoughts are that this is one area I want to pursue further--I think grounding the literature in ancient examples and a variety of disciplines may aide in legitimating the field of study and clarifying future research objectives. This, in turn, should fine-tune the "how-to" work of practitioners and consultants.
Bibliography:
Bornstein, David (1998) "Changing the world on a shoestring: ambitious foundation promotes social change by finding 'social entreprenuers'" Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol. 281, No.1, pp34-39.
Johnson, Sherrill (2000) "Literature Review on Social Entreprenuership" Canadian Centre for Social Entreprenuership, p.9.
The Institute for Social Entreprenuers (April 2, 2008) "Evolution of the social enterprise industry: A chronology of key events."
Besides the format being slightly difficult to follow, there does seem to be a surplus of references to Boschee's initiatives. I am not suggesting his work hasn't been important or even catalytic, but it reminds me of Ralph Waldo Emerson's quote, "All history becomes subjective; in other words there is properly no history, only biography."
The historical antecedents noted (courtesy of Jim McClurg) need to be fleshed out a little more extensively. The typology is noted but not the actor or some key examples (i.e. Higher Education (tuition), Monastaries (wine and cheese sales), etc.). I am thinking particularly of the Jesuits as a great example--not only the substance of their entreprenuerial activity but the spirit of it as well. Sherrill Johnson wrote an excellent literature review for the Canadian Centre for Social Entreprenuership in 2000 where she quotes Bornstein who charecterized a social entreprenuer as "...a pathbreaker with a powerful idea, who combines visionary and real world problem-solving creativity, who has a strong ethical fibre and who is totally possesed by his or her vision for change." More thoughts on Jesuits another time.
Lots of good reading mentioned (must assemble massive bibliography!) but a format that tracks academic publications in one color and initiatives in another would be more useful.
My general thoughts are that this is one area I want to pursue further--I think grounding the literature in ancient examples and a variety of disciplines may aide in legitimating the field of study and clarifying future research objectives. This, in turn, should fine-tune the "how-to" work of practitioners and consultants.
Bibliography:
Bornstein, David (1998) "Changing the world on a shoestring: ambitious foundation promotes social change by finding 'social entreprenuers'" Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol. 281, No.1, pp34-39.
Johnson, Sherrill (2000) "Literature Review on Social Entreprenuership" Canadian Centre for Social Entreprenuership, p.9.
The Institute for Social Entreprenuers (April 2, 2008) "Evolution of the social enterprise industry: A chronology of key events."
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
The High Road and the Low Road
I think immediately of three places one can go to learn the Most Important Ideas (MII) relating to a topic. The best place takes the most time and involves compiling many books and articles relating to that topic, then combing the index, footnotes, and bibliography for the authors, ideas, and books that appear most often. Next you read all those authors, learn about those ideas, then sit down and write out how they all inter-relate, what the MII are, and why they are important. This is what I am attempting to do over the next two years.
The other two ways involve (a) opening a Google page, typing in said topic, and reading the first three links that come up, or if you are really lazy or pressed for time, just the Wikipedia page. This is very tempting.
Or (b), and only slightly more respectable than option a, is going to Amazon.com and typing in the topic, reading the summary and reviews for the topic, as well as the books that Amazon says, "the same person who bought this book also bought..." This is also very tempting. I will say, however, that I am curious how they will compare. Will the MII come from the books Amazon recommends? Or are the real gems hiding under heavier rocks?
My gut instinct is that while a number of the "classics" will come up on such searches, many popular books on Amazon are a little "Social Enterprise Light" and many of the best academic ideas are published in journals and best found through J-STOR or the like. We'll see.
It is incredible how many topics I probably seem very knowledeable on that have only encountered the second two processes. Gritty research is like cooking Thanksgiving dinner though--a hellava lot of work but totally worth it at the end.
The other two ways involve (a) opening a Google page, typing in said topic, and reading the first three links that come up, or if you are really lazy or pressed for time, just the Wikipedia page. This is very tempting.
Or (b), and only slightly more respectable than option a, is going to Amazon.com and typing in the topic, reading the summary and reviews for the topic, as well as the books that Amazon says, "the same person who bought this book also bought..." This is also very tempting. I will say, however, that I am curious how they will compare. Will the MII come from the books Amazon recommends? Or are the real gems hiding under heavier rocks?
My gut instinct is that while a number of the "classics" will come up on such searches, many popular books on Amazon are a little "Social Enterprise Light" and many of the best academic ideas are published in journals and best found through J-STOR or the like. We'll see.
It is incredible how many topics I probably seem very knowledeable on that have only encountered the second two processes. Gritty research is like cooking Thanksgiving dinner though--a hellava lot of work but totally worth it at the end.
"What does it mean? Why is it important?"
There is a discussion at the following blog regarding blogging as a Literature Review.
http://blog.ulisesmejias.com/2006/01/25/the-blog-as-dissertation-literature-review/
I want to comment in particular on Dave Boote's reply. Boote co-authored (with Penny Beile) the article "Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation," published in the Journal Educational Researcher in the August/September 2005 issue.
I enjoyed his general thoughts on the doctoral process and what it means. He describes students who write less-than-exemplery dissertations, "They cannot even imagine themselves writing for the ages, for another doctoral students 50 or 100 years from now grappling with the same topic...The great majority of scholarly publishing is at best Kuhnian “normal science” – small steps within a program of research." I think a major challenge in tackling the subject matter I am taking on will be to dance well between the "sexy," immediately practical bits and the bigger idea and bigger issues at stake.
This is one thing I admire so much when read and re-read Peter Drucker (and trust me, there is always something you haven't read.) So much of what he wrote and said crossed disciplines and even time and many of the things he wrote in 1950 sound fresh today. As a scholar of management I often feel that this is the legacy I follow-in. Drucker, James MacGregor Burns, my mentor Jean Lipman-Blueman each have a profound ability to draw from economics, science, philosophy, history, and sociology; using them to shed light on the most difficult problems facing organizations today.
It is both discouraging and relieving to know I will probably be a "normal" scientist, chiseling my little dent in a big boulder. I do, however, believe that becoming an excellent scholar is aided by this long-term view. Instead of allowing myself to feel inundated by everything out there I must keep my focus, asking, as Boote does, "What does it mean? Why is it important?" To discern those ideas that are lasting contributions.
http://blog.ulisesmejias.com/2006/01/25/the-blog-as-dissertation-literature-review/
I want to comment in particular on Dave Boote's reply. Boote co-authored (with Penny Beile) the article "Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation," published in the Journal Educational Researcher in the August/September 2005 issue.
I enjoyed his general thoughts on the doctoral process and what it means. He describes students who write less-than-exemplery dissertations, "They cannot even imagine themselves writing for the ages, for another doctoral students 50 or 100 years from now grappling with the same topic...The great majority of scholarly publishing is at best Kuhnian “normal science” – small steps within a program of research." I think a major challenge in tackling the subject matter I am taking on will be to dance well between the "sexy," immediately practical bits and the bigger idea and bigger issues at stake.
This is one thing I admire so much when read and re-read Peter Drucker (and trust me, there is always something you haven't read.) So much of what he wrote and said crossed disciplines and even time and many of the things he wrote in 1950 sound fresh today. As a scholar of management I often feel that this is the legacy I follow-in. Drucker, James MacGregor Burns, my mentor Jean Lipman-Blueman each have a profound ability to draw from economics, science, philosophy, history, and sociology; using them to shed light on the most difficult problems facing organizations today.
It is both discouraging and relieving to know I will probably be a "normal" scientist, chiseling my little dent in a big boulder. I do, however, believe that becoming an excellent scholar is aided by this long-term view. Instead of allowing myself to feel inundated by everything out there I must keep my focus, asking, as Boote does, "What does it mean? Why is it important?" To discern those ideas that are lasting contributions.
The Compass and the Destination
To begin on a journey I believe you must know generally where you are headed and you must have a compass of some kind to show you the way to that destination. That is to say, an end that defines the mean. To begin the journey I need to know generally where I would like to go and I need some directional tools to get me there. That does not assume that I will not alter it at some point or take a detour, but without these two things I will get very lost, or worse, I won't begin my journey at all.
Many young people, especially in New York City where I live, suffer from problems arising from some combination of these factors. Some do not know where they are going, they have a great compass, but it does them no good and they hop from job to job performing well but creating no real value because they can't stick around long enough to see anything through.
Some people have a great destination in mind but they do not have mentors, practical tools, the will, or the emotional resources to get there. They can explain very well what they hope to accomplish but when you look at their life and the measure of their days they are not doing anything to get themselves there--some even think if they just wander around long enough they will end up at their destination accidentally!
Some people have neither. The years go by and they move from one job to another, or sit in the same one day in and day out. They get older. If you ask them they really don't know what they want and there is an underriding anxiousness about making a decision at all--they are paralyzed.
The last are those with both a functioning compass and a clear destination. They create value in the organizations where they work because they see it as a means to their goal, yet understand that journeys take time and integrity and character will ultimately make them more successful in the long run. Some of these people may never reach their intended destination! But they accept that as part of the journey, they are flexible and can reorient their path with their trusty compass, picking a new destination when the path is too difficult or when they are needed elsewhere.
Pursuing research in a field of study is like this. From time to time I will attempt to tag posts as compass or destination as I assemble some tools for the journey and as I clarify my destination.
Many young people, especially in New York City where I live, suffer from problems arising from some combination of these factors. Some do not know where they are going, they have a great compass, but it does them no good and they hop from job to job performing well but creating no real value because they can't stick around long enough to see anything through.
Some people have a great destination in mind but they do not have mentors, practical tools, the will, or the emotional resources to get there. They can explain very well what they hope to accomplish but when you look at their life and the measure of their days they are not doing anything to get themselves there--some even think if they just wander around long enough they will end up at their destination accidentally!
Some people have neither. The years go by and they move from one job to another, or sit in the same one day in and day out. They get older. If you ask them they really don't know what they want and there is an underriding anxiousness about making a decision at all--they are paralyzed.
The last are those with both a functioning compass and a clear destination. They create value in the organizations where they work because they see it as a means to their goal, yet understand that journeys take time and integrity and character will ultimately make them more successful in the long run. Some of these people may never reach their intended destination! But they accept that as part of the journey, they are flexible and can reorient their path with their trusty compass, picking a new destination when the path is too difficult or when they are needed elsewhere.
Pursuing research in a field of study is like this. From time to time I will attempt to tag posts as compass or destination as I assemble some tools for the journey and as I clarify my destination.
Research: Where have I been?
In the previous post where I submitted the thoughts of the Venerable Mind on my graduate school chances an important point regarding methodology was raised. Though I am being snarky I will say that he was absolutely correct on all points and I am very grateful that he took the time to respond to me. I think in my years at CMC, and earlier at the Drucker School I allowed an inflated ego and sheer impulsivity to take the advice and time of other Venerable Minds for granted. I am now more careful when enlisting their advice or recommendation and count myself as very lucky for this access.
I will begin by confessing I haven't read any good research methodology books. Both of my parents should role their eyes at this point and mention the scores of them on our shelves at home but as there are hundreds and hundreds of books on those shelves and I am not sure how I was supposed to find them. My understanding from high school is that you should read books, compare them, and then craft 5 paragraph essays with one main point that involve lots of block quotes to take up space. You should state many unique, original, thoughts making sure that everyone knows how brilliant you are for thinking them and rest-assured that no one else has ever thought such brilliant thoughts.
Unfortunately this system did not work so well in college, where my verbosity and hyperbole was scorned rather than appreciated. Research papers always frustrated me because I was sure I had better things to do than repeat back other people's brilliant thoughts--I had much more important things to say! And then there was Professor Jack Pitney, promoting the antithesis of my style. His papers were always short (1-3 pages), they must adhere strictly to to the Elements of Style, and he really didn't think my thoughts were so brilliant. Professor Ward Elliott, as well, would frequently bring up what I thought were obscure references until I realized these were quite important people who had made an actual impact (as opposed to my own imagined one) that I should probably read.
Each course, paper, and professor altered my thinking on this. The final moment when understanding came occured in my last weeks of college. In writing my senior thesis on the Evangelical vote in Oregon during the 2004 election I realized that the literature review, both as process and product, was far better than any of the "brilliant" observations I laid forth in later chapters.
Now I feel a little bit like I am starting from scratch. This blogging is my attempt to structure this new period in my studies. I feel like something large is looming over my head and I must learn all of the ends and outs of it, en masse and in particular, and then I can hoist it down and engage in chiseling my own little niche into it.
As Reepicheap says in The Last Battle, "Further Up! and Further In!"
I will begin by confessing I haven't read any good research methodology books. Both of my parents should role their eyes at this point and mention the scores of them on our shelves at home but as there are hundreds and hundreds of books on those shelves and I am not sure how I was supposed to find them. My understanding from high school is that you should read books, compare them, and then craft 5 paragraph essays with one main point that involve lots of block quotes to take up space. You should state many unique, original, thoughts making sure that everyone knows how brilliant you are for thinking them and rest-assured that no one else has ever thought such brilliant thoughts.
Unfortunately this system did not work so well in college, where my verbosity and hyperbole was scorned rather than appreciated. Research papers always frustrated me because I was sure I had better things to do than repeat back other people's brilliant thoughts--I had much more important things to say! And then there was Professor Jack Pitney, promoting the antithesis of my style. His papers were always short (1-3 pages), they must adhere strictly to to the Elements of Style, and he really didn't think my thoughts were so brilliant. Professor Ward Elliott, as well, would frequently bring up what I thought were obscure references until I realized these were quite important people who had made an actual impact (as opposed to my own imagined one) that I should probably read.
Each course, paper, and professor altered my thinking on this. The final moment when understanding came occured in my last weeks of college. In writing my senior thesis on the Evangelical vote in Oregon during the 2004 election I realized that the literature review, both as process and product, was far better than any of the "brilliant" observations I laid forth in later chapters.
Now I feel a little bit like I am starting from scratch. This blogging is my attempt to structure this new period in my studies. I feel like something large is looming over my head and I must learn all of the ends and outs of it, en masse and in particular, and then I can hoist it down and engage in chiseling my own little niche into it.
As Reepicheap says in The Last Battle, "Further Up! and Further In!"
Not Good Enough
Though we will all never be good enough, never know enough, never succeed enough (my therapist disagrees with this but that is for another day and another blog) There have been some key moments in my life where these shortcomings were made particularly obvious to me. I will be honest--it hurt. A lot. I am still archaic and believe humility is a virtue so while I pursue such things I thought I would submit to you all the response of one venerable mind to my unfounded hope of climbing the ivory tower:
Joanna,
I don't think you'd get much doctoral support for these topics in the Business School either. What's missing in your email is any reference to the questions (hypotheses) you want to address (test). Aside from that the 50th percentile in math doesn't bode well for admission to the political science department. I can't comment on the Business School because for us you'd have to take the GMAT, but if your performance on math in that test paralleled that in the GRE, I think you'd be hard-pressed to get in. Doctoral study at a place like Columbia, business as well as political science, places a very high premium on the use of mathematically complex methodologies to raise or test hypotheses that are grounded in an academic discipline (in the business school, psychology, sociology or economics, and in political science either political science or possibly economics). I hope this is helpful, and I'm sorry if it's discouraging, but my sense is that you need to get a better feel for what doctoral programs entail, particularly at rarified research universities like Columbia. That's not to say that you can't get a doctorate in fields or subfields like the ones you mentioned without being a methodological maven, but that's hard to do, indeed impossible, at a place like Columbia. Good luck.
Venerable Mind
Joanna,
I don't think you'd get much doctoral support for these topics in the Business School either. What's missing in your email is any reference to the questions (hypotheses) you want to address (test). Aside from that the 50th percentile in math doesn't bode well for admission to the political science department. I can't comment on the Business School because for us you'd have to take the GMAT, but if your performance on math in that test paralleled that in the GRE, I think you'd be hard-pressed to get in. Doctoral study at a place like Columbia, business as well as political science, places a very high premium on the use of mathematically complex methodologies to raise or test hypotheses that are grounded in an academic discipline (in the business school, psychology, sociology or economics, and in political science either political science or possibly economics). I hope this is helpful, and I'm sorry if it's discouraging, but my sense is that you need to get a better feel for what doctoral programs entail, particularly at rarified research universities like Columbia. That's not to say that you can't get a doctorate in fields or subfields like the ones you mentioned without being a methodological maven, but that's hard to do, indeed impossible, at a place like Columbia. Good luck.
Venerable Mind
Statement of Purpose (circa 2006)
See previous post on what this is.
SOP Final
During my most recent visit to Brazil this past spring I was unfortunate enough to arrive just days after organized crime units launched a coordinated attack on police in Sao Paulo prisons and the surrounding areas. While I was there I met with two Japanese brothers who run JACTO, a manufacturer of farm equipment that operates as the sole employer in a small town. Last year poor economic conditions caused by instability in the government forced the company to lay off many employees. As we watched the 2,000 or so workers the plant employed leave for the day. I was struck by the burden of responsibility one brother felt for them and the community.
My experiences only confirm something I have been learning for years – the private, public, and social sectors in developing countries, and especially in Latin America, are intimately connected. I believe their dependent relationship is not always a liability, but can present an innovative avenue for development in a rapidly globalizing world. My research suggests that the emergence of social entrepreneurship and multi-sector partnerships, though in their infancy, could prove to stabilize institutions and improve democracy and civic participation.
I was greatly influenced by the theories of Peter Drucker prior to college, especially his belief that, "The most significant opportunities for converting social problems into business opportunities may therefore not lie in new technologies, new products, new services. They may lie in solving the social problem, that is, social innovation, which then directly and indirectly benefits and strengthens the company or the industry." (The Essential Drucker, 2003, pg. 56). From 2000 until 2002 I was involved with the Drucker School of Management where I would help transport Professor Drucker to his Saturday classes. Through his lectures and the mentorship of Professor Jean Lipman-Blumen at Claremont, I became especially interested in how businesses and non-profits worked with governments towards mutually beneficial ends.
In college I focused my study in political science, continuing to research business and non-profits as possible means to the goal of establishing democratic institutions. I was influenced by de Tocqueville in a course on civic participation which included an internship with the Chamber of Commerce in my hometown. In the summer of 2003 I studied the impact of an international development NGO in Bolivia that focused on holistic health and emphasized participation of marginalized groups. The following summer I returned to Brazil to research transformational leadership in a church that operates internationally. This included experiences in urban centers in the south as well as rural villages on the Amazon.
The culminating moment in my decision to turn this research into a career in academe came while presenting my research from Brazil at a national conference that included practitioners, researchers and students in leadership. At the lunch roundtable where I presented my research, I realized that the elderly gentleman across from me wore a name tag that read "James MacGregor Burns." Though it made me nervous to share my research with someone so knowledgeable, I proceeded, and at the end requested that he share his thoughts. In his reply he commented, "if this generation does not put all of its intellectual resources towards the end of improving the situation of the poor in the world, then it will be the greatest ethical failure of the age." I realized then that continuing my research through a PhD was not less important than the "doers" who worked in international development, but was equally important and more fitting to my abilities and future goals.
One of my reasons for going to work for Cravath, Swaine, & Moore after graduation was my desire to gain some experience in business, observing corporations and learning more about how they function. As a Corporate Legal Assistant I worked with Fortune 200 clients on deals that demonstrated emerging trends in business. Among many securities transactions, I worked on one of the first Initial Public Offerings for a Greek holding company and helped our client Time, Inc. in their first foray into Latin America with the purchase of Expansion. This professional experience filled in gaps in my understanding, especially the relationship of scholarship to practice.
My research is interdisciplinary in nature, combining the fields of political science, comparative government and management with development economics. I was surprised at the themes that emerged through my research. The model of sustainable development through grassroots organizations, though intriguing, was limited in its reach by excluding the private sector. Separate from the dominant world of development economists, activists, and state actors were a small but growing number of social sector organizations pairing with motivated businesses in mutually-beneficial partnerships focused on the poor; this was a dynamic response to globalization that seemed separate from governmental and non-profit projects. The literature also appeared distinct, with little collaboration between business schools engaged in social enterprise ventures and education on the one hand, and on the other, political scientists focused on grassroots social sector organizations working towards sustainable development. I believe a cross-pollination of the literature that reflects the growing practice of multi-sector partnerships can deepen knowledge in both field and increase the effectiveness of practitioners joined in social ventures.
In my research I hope to pose the question, “Are multi-sector partnerships part of a viable solution to overcoming social problems in Latin America?” Through qualitative research methods, specifically case studies, I hope to uncover some examples of how this might work. The larger question should lead me to more specific areas in which to focus my research methodology. In my graduate studies at _________ [state here the specifics of the program that appeal to me]. In the future I envision myself not only as an academic, but as a member of a vibrant, complex community of knowledge workers collaborating to solve social problems with the tools of of management applied across sectors.
SOP Final
During my most recent visit to Brazil this past spring I was unfortunate enough to arrive just days after organized crime units launched a coordinated attack on police in Sao Paulo prisons and the surrounding areas. While I was there I met with two Japanese brothers who run JACTO, a manufacturer of farm equipment that operates as the sole employer in a small town. Last year poor economic conditions caused by instability in the government forced the company to lay off many employees. As we watched the 2,000 or so workers the plant employed leave for the day. I was struck by the burden of responsibility one brother felt for them and the community.
My experiences only confirm something I have been learning for years – the private, public, and social sectors in developing countries, and especially in Latin America, are intimately connected. I believe their dependent relationship is not always a liability, but can present an innovative avenue for development in a rapidly globalizing world. My research suggests that the emergence of social entrepreneurship and multi-sector partnerships, though in their infancy, could prove to stabilize institutions and improve democracy and civic participation.
I was greatly influenced by the theories of Peter Drucker prior to college, especially his belief that, "The most significant opportunities for converting social problems into business opportunities may therefore not lie in new technologies, new products, new services. They may lie in solving the social problem, that is, social innovation, which then directly and indirectly benefits and strengthens the company or the industry." (The Essential Drucker, 2003, pg. 56). From 2000 until 2002 I was involved with the Drucker School of Management where I would help transport Professor Drucker to his Saturday classes. Through his lectures and the mentorship of Professor Jean Lipman-Blumen at Claremont, I became especially interested in how businesses and non-profits worked with governments towards mutually beneficial ends.
In college I focused my study in political science, continuing to research business and non-profits as possible means to the goal of establishing democratic institutions. I was influenced by de Tocqueville in a course on civic participation which included an internship with the Chamber of Commerce in my hometown. In the summer of 2003 I studied the impact of an international development NGO in Bolivia that focused on holistic health and emphasized participation of marginalized groups. The following summer I returned to Brazil to research transformational leadership in a church that operates internationally. This included experiences in urban centers in the south as well as rural villages on the Amazon.
The culminating moment in my decision to turn this research into a career in academe came while presenting my research from Brazil at a national conference that included practitioners, researchers and students in leadership. At the lunch roundtable where I presented my research, I realized that the elderly gentleman across from me wore a name tag that read "James MacGregor Burns." Though it made me nervous to share my research with someone so knowledgeable, I proceeded, and at the end requested that he share his thoughts. In his reply he commented, "if this generation does not put all of its intellectual resources towards the end of improving the situation of the poor in the world, then it will be the greatest ethical failure of the age." I realized then that continuing my research through a PhD was not less important than the "doers" who worked in international development, but was equally important and more fitting to my abilities and future goals.
One of my reasons for going to work for Cravath, Swaine, & Moore after graduation was my desire to gain some experience in business, observing corporations and learning more about how they function. As a Corporate Legal Assistant I worked with Fortune 200 clients on deals that demonstrated emerging trends in business. Among many securities transactions, I worked on one of the first Initial Public Offerings for a Greek holding company and helped our client Time, Inc. in their first foray into Latin America with the purchase of Expansion. This professional experience filled in gaps in my understanding, especially the relationship of scholarship to practice.
My research is interdisciplinary in nature, combining the fields of political science, comparative government and management with development economics. I was surprised at the themes that emerged through my research. The model of sustainable development through grassroots organizations, though intriguing, was limited in its reach by excluding the private sector. Separate from the dominant world of development economists, activists, and state actors were a small but growing number of social sector organizations pairing with motivated businesses in mutually-beneficial partnerships focused on the poor; this was a dynamic response to globalization that seemed separate from governmental and non-profit projects. The literature also appeared distinct, with little collaboration between business schools engaged in social enterprise ventures and education on the one hand, and on the other, political scientists focused on grassroots social sector organizations working towards sustainable development. I believe a cross-pollination of the literature that reflects the growing practice of multi-sector partnerships can deepen knowledge in both field and increase the effectiveness of practitioners joined in social ventures.
In my research I hope to pose the question, “Are multi-sector partnerships part of a viable solution to overcoming social problems in Latin America?” Through qualitative research methods, specifically case studies, I hope to uncover some examples of how this might work. The larger question should lead me to more specific areas in which to focus my research methodology. In my graduate studies at _________ [state here the specifics of the program that appeal to me]. In the future I envision myself not only as an academic, but as a member of a vibrant, complex community of knowledge workers collaborating to solve social problems with the tools of of management applied across sectors.
An Intro to my SOP (circa 2006)
Prior to landing in this program I began searching out programs that would help me study these ideas at the doctoral level. At the time I felt I should root the research in political science--primarily because like most young people I consider myself a "mover and shaker" and there is EXTREMELY little research conducted in the field on Social Enterprise, especially research that incorporates the private sector. Due to a number of factors I was summarily rejected--my GRE Math score was a 400 (don't try and nurse a 2 month old and study GRE math at the same time), I think my ideas were several years shy of readiness for such a program, and I don't think my ideas were a good match for the overseeing professors, the schools, or the programs.
I also think I did not quite understand the function of the Ph.D. and wrapping my mind completely around this process as "indoctrination into a profession" is ongoing.
The field of Social Enterprise and MSP is rapidly expanding, and "sexy" and many of the loudest (though not always the best) voices generate fluff rather than academic study. I have a real sense at this point in my graduate learning (the beginning)that there is a deluge of information, initiatives, and energy. Though the recent explosion of innovative ventures to raise the standard of living of the least is generally positive and constructive, there are also a number of opportunists (academics, investors, and social sector organizations alike).
It is important to remember two things. First, the field of management itself is in it's infancy and there is nebulous world where academics, psuedo-academics, and practioners exist together that is unlike almost any other discipline. This allows great collaboration, instant application of research, and is quite healthy. However, there is also much that is not useful or original and many opportunities for flat-out bull-shit. Secondly, in reference to this expanding idea and application of the over-lapping worlds of Social Enterprise/Social Investment/Multi-Sector Partnerships/Corporate Social Responsibility (Etc) it is important to remember that nothing is new under the sun. Many hundreds of years of academic study and history from diverse fields (old ones like philosophy and new ones like sociology alike) contribute ideas, methodologies, and observations. Also, even in practice the questions being asked in research are ancient questions and the endeavours of the pracitioners are not as unique as many assume (lest we forget the Jesuits, see Chris Lowney's book Heroic Leadership: Best Practices from a 450-Year-Old Company That Changed the World).
What began as an introduction to something else has degenerated into philosophical preachiness but returning to my original point. After all that rejection I was not ready for a Ph.D. program. However, that process of thinking about it was intrumental and so the next post will be my Statement of Purpose (the general one) used to apply to those programs, as it includes much of the coursework and thinkers that influenced me.
I also think I did not quite understand the function of the Ph.D. and wrapping my mind completely around this process as "indoctrination into a profession" is ongoing.
The field of Social Enterprise and MSP is rapidly expanding, and "sexy" and many of the loudest (though not always the best) voices generate fluff rather than academic study. I have a real sense at this point in my graduate learning (the beginning)that there is a deluge of information, initiatives, and energy. Though the recent explosion of innovative ventures to raise the standard of living of the least is generally positive and constructive, there are also a number of opportunists (academics, investors, and social sector organizations alike).
It is important to remember two things. First, the field of management itself is in it's infancy and there is nebulous world where academics, psuedo-academics, and practioners exist together that is unlike almost any other discipline. This allows great collaboration, instant application of research, and is quite healthy. However, there is also much that is not useful or original and many opportunities for flat-out bull-shit. Secondly, in reference to this expanding idea and application of the over-lapping worlds of Social Enterprise/Social Investment/Multi-Sector Partnerships/Corporate Social Responsibility (Etc) it is important to remember that nothing is new under the sun. Many hundreds of years of academic study and history from diverse fields (old ones like philosophy and new ones like sociology alike) contribute ideas, methodologies, and observations. Also, even in practice the questions being asked in research are ancient questions and the endeavours of the pracitioners are not as unique as many assume (lest we forget the Jesuits, see Chris Lowney's book Heroic Leadership: Best Practices from a 450-Year-Old Company That Changed the World).
What began as an introduction to something else has degenerated into philosophical preachiness but returning to my original point. After all that rejection I was not ready for a Ph.D. program. However, that process of thinking about it was intrumental and so the next post will be my Statement of Purpose (the general one) used to apply to those programs, as it includes much of the coursework and thinkers that influenced me.
Why am I here?
Next month I begin my Masters of Arts in Organizational Leadership at Eastern University. My reasons for doing the program are varied, but relevant to this blog, I hope to use this time to develop the questions I will ask during my potential Doctoral studies. This is an informal place for me to connect the different readings and relevant literature, to develop ideas and questions, to receive feedback, and to force myself to write in the hope that one day my writing would be succinct and clear in style, the information accurate and cited, and the arguments compelling, original, and constructive to the field.
The general plan to start with will be to describe how my interest in the field developed, the most influential works I have read thus far, some recent thoughts I have, and then I will attempt to begin to fill in the holes.
Due to the informal nature of blogging, I hope to walk a line between informal blather and brilliance--aiming for the latter but probably landing closer to the former. Fire away!
The general plan to start with will be to describe how my interest in the field developed, the most influential works I have read thus far, some recent thoughts I have, and then I will attempt to begin to fill in the holes.
Due to the informal nature of blogging, I hope to walk a line between informal blather and brilliance--aiming for the latter but probably landing closer to the former. Fire away!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)