2.2 Application of Case Study (Mildmay Mission Hospital)
The case study proves that social entrepreneurship is needed in our society, and that non-profit enterprises are a vital aspect of our community. Social entrepreneurship is not only about creating jobs and innovation in the society. It is about putting the social objectives first and utilizing commercial skills to achieve them, in an entrepreneurial way. Helen Taylor-Thomson contributed to her community in many ways. It is a common effect that these cases gets people eager to contribute and fight for the cause in such small communities as the one Helen Taylor-Thomson operated in.
In Helen Taylor-Thomson career with the hospital, she managed to generate many workplaces. When expanding abroad in Uganda, she was then able to grow her company and as again created employment opportunities in a country that does not have much recourses.
As mentioned in our findings, social entrepreneurs often deliver services more efficiently than the public sector. This is much due to the fact that they are less bureaucratic, more flexible and the staff is usually much more committed, which again leads to efficiency. This applies for the Mildmay Hospital. Helen’s approach to AIDS care and her early recognition of its vital position were far better than the public sectors’ approach.
In the case of Mildmay Hospital, the cost benefit analysis is an interesting aspect to look at. Commonly with other examples of social entrepreneurship, cost and benefits can often not be measured. Even though it cannot be measured in price, it is merely a social benefit. In this case it is the people needs of AIDS care that gained a significant social benefit.
3.Traits and competencies: the individual
3.1 The Individual; Entrepreneur vs. Social Entrepreneur
This point will focus on the traits and competencies of entrepreneurs in general and social entrepreneurs, likewise. By doing this we are trying to achieve an understanding of their main differences, or as we will discover, similarities. As we experienced during class discussion, it is difficult to set a distinct definition on the differences of business entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs.
A number of different characteristics and traits have been proposed to describe an entrepreneur from the rest. We have found that this difference can be explained by their attitude. What can be seen as a major problem for some might be seen as an opportunity for entrepreneurs (Carter S. Jones-Evens D. 2006, p. 159). The Stanford Social Innovation Review of 2007 agrees, and describes the difference in the following way; “an entrepreneur is an opportunity-driven character who sees the condition as an opportunity to create something new, while others see it as an inconvenience to be tailored”. The entrepreneur thereby brings a set of traits to the identified opportunity such as inspiration, creativity, direct action, courage and fortitude. The review emphasizes the importance of these characteristics to the process of innovation (Martin R. Osberg S. 2007).
Carter & Jones elaborates around some individual characteristics and attitudes of an entrepreneur and the intention to pursue an entrepreneurial career:
- Risk taking propensity: There is found to be very little difference between entrepreneurs and others in the risk propensity. (Carter S. Jones-Evens D. 2006, p. 161).
- Need for achievement: MaCelland cited in Carter&Jones argues that it is the prospect of achievement satisfaction, not money that drive the entrepreneur (MaCelland 1961, 1969 cited in Carter S. Jones-Evens D. 2006, p. 163)
- Locus of control: Weiner, also cited in Carter&Jones, states that locus of control is conceived as one determinant of the expectancy of success (Weiner, 1992 cited in Carter S. Jones-Evens D. 2006, p. 163).
- Desire for autonomy: Entrepreneurs value freedom and individualism more than other people (Carter S. Jones-Evens D. 2006, p. 164).
Burns perceives the external influences of antecedent, incubator and environmental important for the start-up decision. Antecedent influences include those of generic factors, family influences, education and previous career experience. Incubator organisation include those of motivation to stay or leave, experience in small business settings, geographic location and ext. Environmental influences include those of economic conditions, accessibility to finance, availability of staff and supporting services, accessibility of customers and ext. (Burns P. 2007, p. 101)
An entrepreneur has often been identified as a “business hero”, meaning a unique skilled leader and innovator with outstanding personal traits (Venkataraman, 1997; Garner, 1998 cited in Carter S. Jones-Evens D. 2006, p. 223). Burns have identified several personal qualities of an entrepreneur as creativity, stamina (running ones own business is really a 24/7 activity), commitment and dedication, opportunism, ability to bounce back, motivation to excel, and tolerance of risk, ambiguity and uncertainty (Burns P. 2007, p.101).
After this week’s literature reading and discussion, as well as the portfolio process as a whole, we clearly understand the characteristics of an entrepreneur. However, looking at social entrepreneurs as a different aspect of entrepreneurship is a more complex mission. Social entrepreneurs seem to have most of the same character traits and behaviours as their business counterparts. Even though they are sharing most of the same paradigm of leadership, vision, drive and opportunism, social entrepreneurs traits exposes greater complexity (Carter S. Jones-Evens D. 2006, p. 223). This is most significant in terms of their “socio-moral motivation”. Mort, cited in Burns, supports this assumption and notes that social entrepreneurs differ from other entrepreneurs in their mission of creating superior social value for their clients (Mort et al., 2003 cited in Burns P. 2007, p. 454). Social entrepreneurs do not think of money in terms of mine, but in terms of ours. Thus, they have a different mindset when starting a business. Emerson and Twersky, cited in Carter&Jones, notes that social entrepreneurs often have experience in community service and development. Their history of commitment of serving social justice is seen as their core drive to create social purpose business venture (Emerson and Twersky, 1996 cited in Carter S. Jones-Evens D. 2006, p. 223).
Thompson, cited in Burns, identifies a social entrepreneur as being creative, ambitious and driven, able to communicate an inspirational mission, able to recruiting and inspire staff, knows where to acquire resources, vision to add value to underprivileged sections of the community, relationships & networks that contributes to trust, visibility, credibility and cooperation, and able to overcome setbacks by understanding the managing of risk and limited resources (Thompson op.cit, cited in Burs P. 2007, p. 457). Leadbeater, cited in Burns, supports Thompson’s description and says that they are able to create impressive flat and flexible scheme of limited or virtually no resources. He also states that social entrepreneurs “indentify under-utilized resources/people, buildings, equipment, and find ways of putting them to use to satisfy unmet social needs” (Leadbeater op. cit, cited in Burns P. 2007, p. 454, 458). (Mort et. al. cited in Burns P. 2007, p. 459), describes the social entrepreneur as being driven to create a better social value, exhibit an ability to see through the complexity of situation, able to recognize opportunities to create better social value and display innovativeness, pro-activeness and risk taking in their diction making.
Even though social entrepreneurship is a rising but ill-defined concept, most studies and sources thereby prove to have somewhat the same assumption about the complexity of the multi-dimensional nature of social entrepreneurs when it comes to their traits and competences.
3.2 Application of Case Study (Mildmay Mission Hospital)
After having elaborated around the concepts of the entrepreneurs as an individual with a certain set of characteristics and traits, we grasp the importance of applying the theory learnt to the real-life case of Mildmay Mission Hospital.
From the case study, we have identified a set of traits and characteristics typical for an entrepreneur; in this case a social entrepreneur – Helen Taylor-Thompson.
As stated in our findings, social entrepreneurs often have experience in community service and development. This emphasizes the importance of antecedent influences. In the case of Helen T-Thompson, this is very true. She came from a family who engaged in social work. Her father contributed to the foundation of a hospital in Africa. Helen herself has a history of serving the society and community by being involved in working behind the lines in France in the Second World War. Her business skills developed in her involvement with her family’s business as well as her experience in the property related business. For these reasons, as well as her involvement with the hospital for over 30 years, we are able to see that the generic factors as well as her career experience has been vital for her development and engagement of Mildmay Mission Hospital.
Helen T-Thompson was both determined and driven. She never gave up on her vision for the hospital. While many of her co-workers attempted to accept the closure of the hospital, Helen realised she had to fight for its survival and was determined it would not close.
She had a strong sense of mission to keep the hospital alive. The vital part of the survival of the hospital was her ability to commit and de-commit and her strategic awareness capabilities. She had the “vision to see where the vision was going”. Even though she started off with caring for the young chronically sick, she identified the gap of AIDS care and switched the purpose for the hospital. This decision was the future of the hospital. Even though some of her employees were critical to this transformation, she managed to make the staff devoted to the new opportunities laying ahead. The social entrepreneurial asset of being inspirational truly applies to this case. Her genuine charismatic and driven personality inspired not only her co-workers, but also a range of other shareholders.
As discussed in our findings, social entrepreneurs tend to identify under-utilized resources/people, buildings, equipment, and find ways of putting them to use to satisfy unmet social needs. The case study of Mildmay is a good example of this. Helen Taylor-Thompson identified the possibility to use assets that were virtually written of as worthless to create a world-class hospital. This also proves her ability of being innovative to seek new opportunities.
As also stated in our findings, social entrepreneurs often have relationships and networks that contribute to trust, visibility, credibility and cooperation. Helen T-Thompson used both her social and political (NHS) contacts to ensure the survival of the company.
Helen T-Thompson was also highly opportunity driven and continuously saw the opportunity to innovate. The Mildmay hospital has expanded internationally with health care services in Uganda, as well as consultancy services in eleven other countries.
To conclude the relevance of Helen T-Thompson characteristics and traits to her involvement in social entrepreneurship, she was highly involved with the project. She enjoyed the contribution to the society as well as she created a better social value. She saw through the complicity of the situation with innovative decisions. Her proactive and risk taking approach has been the key to the worldwide hospital success. In a space on 15 years or less, this is a heavy achievement.
4. Management behaviour
4.1 Management Behaviour of Entrepreneurs vs. Social Entrepreneurs
From what we have learnt so far in this our analysis, the economic role as well as the traits and competencies of an entrepreneurs are essential when trying to describe what entrepreneurship really is all about. Stevenson (Birley et al., 2000, p. 8), however, argues that entrepreneurship is neither of the above, but rather a cohesive pattern of managerial behaviour that can be measured. He defines entrepreneurship as “the pursuit of opportunity without regard to resources currently controlled”, and goes on by saying that this definition can be explained through six dimension of business practise: strategic orientation, commitment to opportunity commitment of resources, control of resources, management structure and reward philosophy. He goes on by defining two extremes within the different types of managerial behaviour – namely the promoter and the trustee. The promoter is further defined as confident of his/her capability to seize an opportunity regardless of the resources available. The trustee, on the other hand, emphasizes the efficient utilization of existing resources (Birley et al., 2000, p. 8).
Manfred Kets de Vries has another approach, and analyses the issue of control. He states that “to be in control seems to be an important aspect of the life and personality of many entrepreneurs, which therefore subsequently will affect their way of dealing with business, power relationships and management (Birley et al, 2000, p. 5). Burns seems to agree with this, and portrays the typical entrepreneurial organisational structure like a spider’s web, where the entrepreneur sits at the centre of the web with each member of staff reporting to him/her (Burns P, 2007 p. 212). Manfred Kets de Vries (Birley et al., 2000, p. 5) further describes typical entrepreneurs as being hesitant when a matter of control surfaces – “they like to be in control but fear being controlled by others”. In addition, he says that their attitude contrast greatly to the attitude of managers, as many entrepreneurs prove to find it problematic when facing issues of dominance and submission, and are sceptical towards the authority of others. They also seem to find structured situations difficult to deal with, unless these are situations created by themselves (Birley et al., 2000, p.5). Again Burns agrees, stating that entrepreneurs prefer informal organisation structures and influences rather than rigid rules and job definitions. The descriptions above are related to entrepreneurs in general and social entrepreneurs alike.
In correlation to the issues of control and informal structures of organisation, the problem of delegation of management proves obvious. Micro-management will become a burden when, or if, the enterprise grows. Models and theories of Mintzberg (1979), Churchill (updated 1994), Greier (1974) and Storey (1994) all analyse the changes needed when SMEs are expanding. The important issue that we will investigate further within this analysis, however, is how the managerial behaviour for social entrepreneurs is different than for “normal” entrepreneurs.
The growth and development of the social enterprise may be portrayed in Leadbeaters “virtuous circle” (Leadbeater, 1997, p. 68).
As shown by the figure the circle investigates the following aspects; initial endowment of social capital, physical capital, financial capital, human capital, organizational capital, dividends or interest and further social capital (Leadbeater, 1997, p.67). Through his figure Leadbeater is portraying how social entrepreneurs go through a cycle of growth in several linked stages., and emphasize the fact that the organisation can fail when going through any of these phases if the skills and support is not adapted to the need of the organisation. However, the main point Leadbeater is trying to convey through his “virtous circle” is the crucial need of social capital through the development of the social entrepreneurial organisation, and as one can see the circle both starts and ends with the investment of this type of capital. The stages of organisational and human capital within the circle, further highlights the importance of social capital. As the business grows, key personnel, experience and know-how is obviously essential in any entrepreneurial business, yet significantly imperative within social entrepreneurship as it enables more people about, more expertise, more recognition, and thereby more easily accumulation of further social capital. Leadbeater further states that the increased trust and cooperation generated by a successful project may be the main access to fresh injection of social capital, which importantly will lead to an expansion of network, relationships and contacts (Leadbeater, 1997, p. 68). Guclu et al (The Process of Social Entrepreneurship, 2002) agrees with this assumption, and state that “at the most fundamental resource level, the social entrepreneur needs ‘people’ to go forward. People are most important since they bring with them a wide array of intangible resources, such as skills, knowledge, contacts, credentials, passions, and reputations”. In other words, social entrepreneurs are not only met by the problems of growth described by Mintzberg (1979), Churchill (updated 1994), Greier (1974) and Storey (1994), but also the crucial problem of further social capital investments.
Guclu et al also highlights the fact that within the social sector, both people and things can be acquired with or without using money. Thus, for social entrepreneurs, a resource strategy is much more than a financial strategy (The Process of Social Entrepreneurship, 2002). When it comes to strategic orientation within managerial behaviour, entrepreneurs in general tend to place the emphasis on opportunity. It has often been this exact element that has led to the traditional definition of the entrepreneur as opportunistic, creative and innovative (Birley et al., 2000, p. 9). The difference between the “normal” entrepreneur and the social entrepreneur is concerned with the lifetime of the strategic plan, and Burns states that the mission of a social propose rather than commercial, often leads to a longer term planning process than a typical business entrepreneur (Burns P, 2007, p.458).
Another interesting issue highlighted by Leadbeater is the fact that most social entrepreneurs usually create a flat structure to the organization. The staff is hired in full-time positions where they learn how to work with very little resources and but high culture of creativity (Leadbeater C., 1997, p.3). Stevenson (Birley et al., 2000 p. 12) highlights the importance of this flat structure in small and medium enterprises, and says that it maximizes flexibility and an informal organization.
4.2 Application of Case Study (Mildmay Mission Hospital)
After having analysed some of the key issues regarding managerial behaviour and some of the differences between “normal” entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs within this topic, we find it important to apply the case of Mildmay Mission Hospital as it, as previously mentioned, conveys a real-life approach to the topics discussed. The managerial behaviour of Helen Taylor-Thompson is highly reflected by her personal traits and competencies, and as they are already analysed in the previous section of our paper, we will make an effort not to repeat ourselves in this section.
Firstly, is the managerial behaviour of Helen more comparable to the typical “promoter” or the “trustee”? As stated in our findings, the promoter and the trustee are at each end of the spectrum of stereotypes of entrepreneurs, and Helen does not therefore necessarily fit to either one. As Helen managed to make the redundant hospital into a story of success one may argue that she is a typical promoter, which typically is confident of his/her capability to seize an opportunity regardless of the resources available. However, he typical trustee emphasizes the efficient utilization of existing resources. This may also be applied to the case of Mildmay Mission Hospital, as some of the resources (buildings, certain equipment and some social capital), although abandoned by the public sector, were the base and the initial reason for her innovative idea. This is also directly shown in the case study, which says, “The transformation of Mildmay is evidence of how an older charitable tradition can be drawn upon to create a modern approach to health care”.
When it comes to the typical flat and flexible structure apparent in most entrepreneurial organisation, this can be applied to the case story. Helen sees the importance of recruiting key staff, which thereby injects new skills, motivation and the vision to carry the business forward. They all work together, and serve as an inspiration for each other, which also relates to the culture of the management. The flat and flexible structure is somewhat contradictory to the need of control and the spider web approach found in many entrepreneurial individuals and organisations, discussed in the previous section, however. Also, as stated before, Burns highlights the fact that entrepreneurs prefer informal organisation structures and influences rather than rigid rules and job definitions. This is shown in the case study, which says “The core management is small, flexible, dynamic and decisive, but it is also very stretched.” It further implies that Helen works together with her employees in a team, rather than as a boss in the need of control.
To apply Leadbeater’s “virtuous circle”, and the need for social capital injections throughout the development of the social entrepreneurial business, we would like to quote the following statement from the case study; “Simply the survival of the hospital had required the mobilisation of significant social capital. But to survive the hospital had to grow, and to grow it had to have a mission that would attract financial support. In reality it had neither.” At this point, Mildmay faces questions such as social capital, financial injections and succession. However, Helen’s managerial behaviour ensures new social capital; supporters in politics, the gay community and elsewhere, and in addition the quality of her work started to attract growing interest form abroad. This thereby secures the financial capital needed – mainly through government subsidies from the NHS.
When it comes to the strategic mindset of an entrepreneur we have already stated that most entrepreneurs place the emphasis on opportunity. This applies to the managerial behaviour of Helen, as she repetitively adapts the mission of the hospital to fit the opportunities of the hospital and the needs of the community, and thereby ensures the best way forward. When approached with a proposal that it should become an AIDS hospice, Helen’s managerial behaviour and the flexible culture she had created, managed to answer far more quickly than the state, which thereby proves how the flexibility of her strategy became the main reason for the growth and success of the hospital. Her managerial approach provided what so many entrepreneurs neglect, namely the importance of adapting to the changes of growth. She understood that growth is only possible if some older aspects of the organisation’s work can be left behind – namely the department of child care within the hospital. This proved to be a difficult decision, yet vital to the future strategy of the organisation. Another aspect of strategy is how the managerial behaviour of social entrepreneurs in particular tend to plan further ahead in the future compared to the “normal” entrepreneurs. As Helen’s mission constantly adapted to the surrounding – which was a good thing, one cannot say that her initial strategy was planned far ahead in the future. The case study even states that this exact fact implied the ever-present risk that the mission might lose focus. However, we argue that the hospital’s mission was flexible enough to allow growth and expansion, while providing focus and direction. The mission has neither been too restrictive nor too vague. It has inspired its staff and supporters.
5. Conclusion:
In summary, the main question to answer is whether social entrepreneurs really are any different from “normal” entrepreneurs when applied in real life rather than theory. From what we have learnt from our research and application of the case study, the economic role of both, the traits and competencies of both and the managerial behaviour of both, are very similar. Our understanding is that the main difference between them is their objectives of what they want to accomplish – namely profits vs. social improvements of our community, which clearly also affect the role that each group has in the economy and in our society.
Ultimately, we appreciate the opportunity of being able to reflect on our previous assumptions brought to class on Friday, thereby implying the ever-important issue of being critical to what sources we include, and their relevance to the topic matter. As mentioned previously in our report, the issue of social entrepreneurship is increasingly admired, which is reflected through the wide set of relevant sources we have managed to adapt to this weeks’ points of analysis.
6. References:
Books:
Birley Sue. Muzyka Dan. Mastering Entrepreneurship. Prentice Hall. 2000.
Burns Paul. Entrepeneurship and Small Business. Palgrave. 2007.
Carter Sara. Jones-Evans Dylan. Enterprise and Small Business. Prentice Hall. 2006.
Web:
Ayse Guclu, J. Gregory Dees, and Beth Battle Anderson. The Process of Social Entrepreneurship: Creating Opportunities Worthy of Serious Pursuit., 2002
Date viewed: 23.03.2009
Insead knowledge. Social enterprise. Using microcredit to help to lift the poor of poverty yet still post dramatic growth.2008. Available URL: Date viewed: 11.03.09
Leadbeater Charles. The rise of the social entrepreneur. The Mezzanine., 1997 Available. URL: Date Viewed: 23.03.2009
Martin R. Osberg S. Social Entrepreneurship: the case of Definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review. 2007. Available URL: Date Viewed: 23.03.09
The European Weekly, SMEs play important, growing economic role in EU., 2006 Availbale URL: Date viewed: 12.03.09
