Monthly Archives: October 2015

0 Business and Society in Bed Together (Shock! Horror!)

I’ve read the New Statesman from cover to cover every week for decades. The only exception is their supplements; mostly they are not worth the effort and serve to publish dry-as-dust material that no-one would pay for.  Last week’s supplement, about business and society, was an exception and I went out of my way to read it. “Should Business Play a Role in Addressing Poverty in the UK?” can be found in the 23 – 29 October edition or you can download the pdf by clicking on the link.

The supplement is based on a report, supported by the Webb Memorial Trust, about the potential role of business in reducing UK poverty.

Just like most of these supplements, this makes sober reading and the very first sentence does not bode well. “Business and society are often portrayed as being unlikely bedfellows.”

What does this say about our society? How have we found ourselves in a place where the purpose of business is not seen as the benefit of society? The only other possibility is that the purpose of business is to enhance personal wealth and I fear that may not be far from the truth, not only in the public mind but also in the minds of many wealthy owners of corporate businesses.

The Poor Contribute More to Cashflow

It is worth referring to this blog post, “Why companies don’t just target the rich – because the poor have most of the cashflow”. This is a more polemical piece but the point it makes in the first graph is certainly true (although it isn’t referenced at the time of writing). The bottom 50% in society own almost no wealth but provide 30% of the cashflow. The top 10% own 70% of the wealth and contribute 20% to spending.

I argue in this blog, wealth is of no value to society if accumulated in bank accounts. It adds value when it circulates. It seems the poorest contribute proportionately more to circulating finance in the economy than the wealthy.

So, it is not business per se that is the problem. The problem is what happens to the wealth created by businesses. Distribute more of it to the poorest and there will be more cash flowing in the economy and more businesses benefit.

Excessive accumulation of wealth not only locks people into poverty but also makes business more difficult. The various scams described in the “Why Companies …” blog post would not be necessary if more money were circulating.

Private Sector Benefits from Tackling Poverty

Return to the New Statesman supplement and turn to page 7, where you will find a table listing how the private sector benefits when it tackles poverty:

Poverty it seems “with its associated physical, mental and emotional problems, contributes to reduced productivity.” I’m sure that’s right but the point is inequality also contributes to poor business prospects by reducing the money in circulation. Poor circulation will affect productivity too because it means it is harder to meet costs.

Reputation suffers because businesses resort to scams as described in the “Why Companies …” blog post.

New opportunities implies the challenging financial climate opens up new business opportunities and revenue streams. Really? I understand the argument, for example climate change could mean more jobs for businesses installing renewable energy sources or insulation.

But the main blockage, true since the recession in 2008, is there is too little money in circulation. You can’t get a loan to finance your business ideas.

In the end, the supplement demonstrates the poverty of thinking endemic among the political classes. It’s not that poor people’s stress affects productivity so much as the inequalities that make them poor in the first place. If our political leaders do not understand this, what chance have we of a fairer society?

Business and society are natural bedfellows, it is our blindness to the impact of globalisation and the corporate élite that both increases poverty and reduces productivity.

1 Why Spirituality?

Why spirituality? After all, it is not an obvious topic in a blog about community development online.

One obvious, prosaic reason is one of my markets is churches and faith groups. However, this sequence is not solely for the religious.

Spirituality has, for better or worse, become a word used beyond the confines of established religious institutions. Perhaps as more people became estranged from formal religion, they found meaning in spiritual experience.

So, allow me to set out my stall before you decide whether to follow this sequence.

What is spirituality?

My definition in two words is: paying attention. In one word it is: awareness.  As well as their advantage in terms of memorability, these definitions are remarkable because these three words

My Spirituality Sequence

I’m planning to cover three main spirituality topics over the next few months.  (The link takes you to a cornerstone page, listing the posts in this sequence.)  I shall:

This is a basic outline; I’ve no idea where it will take me because that is the nature of spirituality. So, whatever your religious tradition, keep an eye on what I’m writing in this sequence, you never know what I might stumble upon!

0 Your Unique Perspective

In this final post about the branding element of the circuit questionnaire, I shall summarise what I understand about branding in a local economy context, with reference to my business.

My Unique Perspective

My plan is to offer a community development approach to online work. This is particularly for businesses or community organisations with a role in their local economy.  My focus is on the human issues facing organisations working online. This has become possible in recent years because the technical side of website design has become much easier. It is no longer about implementing complex technical procedures. It is about knowing which ones to carry out and how to use them effectively. The skills are about handling human relationships, organisation theory, understanding the local economy, writing copy and not so much about programming machines.

My perspective is from years of working locally and experience of the conflict endemic in organisations. The same conflicts apply when working online. Ignoring conflict and focusing solely on the technical side of things may result in a website. It will not do its job if the organisation is not able to support the website.

I still find conflict difficult and frankly do not believe anyone who claims otherwise. It is often easier to see clearly what is happening in organisations where there is no emotional investment. We often find, when we are close to an organisation, emotions get in the way of clear analysis. I have seen people driven to nervous breakdowns by conflict. Under these circumstances it is impossible to play a constructive role.

My story on my website is an example of the experience many people have and need to deal with when they are in the thick of it or recovering confidence following it.  It shows the outcomes of conflict are rarely victory or defeat and the emotional aftermath can last for years.

Organisational Perspectives

However, this is not the only issue organisations face when working online. Where there is emotional investment in a particular approach, people need support questioning whether their approach is still best. Their approach may consume much time and effort. It can be difficult to tear it down and start over. The demands of running a modern website and social media might uncover policy limitations. Online work opens up new possibilities, not visible to an organisation too closely identified with past policy.

Of course this can be threatening and so conversations about changes to an organisation’s approach need to take place in a safe space. Non-directive consultancy can provide that space not only because it is confidential but also control is firmly in the hands of the consultor.

Once the consultor has decided a new course of action they will need help to implement it, eg getting support for the new actions from the rest of the organisation. Perhaps the new course of action will have implications for online work and at that stage it may be possible to work together with a consultant on online and in-person solutions.

So, that is my unique perspective. What’s yours?

1 Approaches to Social Innovation

Today’s topic is an article by Geoff Mulgan in the 16-22 October 2015 edition of the New Statesman, “Trotsky, Blair and the new politics“.  (You may find it helpful to read the article first; it will open in a new tab.)  Mulgan does not dwell on either Trotsky or Blair; he tells his own story and raises a number of issues.

Sadly, the article is another dig at Jeremy Corbyn.  The New Statesman does not support his leadership and has found it difficult to find a constructive response.  This article might be their most positive approach so far.  It begins by arguing Corbyn’s leadership “could help the Labour Party rediscover its purpose”.  At the end Mulgan suggests the party may have turned down a cul-de-sac.

To a degree, I share this ambivalence.  As a Green, I depart from Corbyn’s approach to the environment, the economy and democracy (voting systems).  Nevertheless, I welcome his promotion to leadership because politicians have become too complacent. It is possible his leadership will open up new possibilities.  It’s a pity the New Statesman can’t offer constructive ideas about how the Labour Party could develop in the future. Instead it laments the loss of the election in 2020.

Mulgan’s career took him from the hard left to working closely with Tony Blair.  He learned to see the difference between the divisive and largely theoretical leftism of the various Trotskyist groups and the need for good management and administration.  He understood the implications of digital technology in the late twentieth century and argued for “networks and different ways of organising the state”.  This contrasts with the top-down arguments for nationalisation and planning from the hard left.

He contrasts political protest movements with the use of political power to cut poverty and rebuild public services.  A significant problem on the left, is a tendency to overemphasise the former at the expense of the latter.  Is it better to emphasise management? The ideal is perhaps credible politicians energised by a strong movement.  Without such a movement the party is solely concerned about winning elections and not about what to do once they have power.

The problem for many on the left is they do not recognise entrepreneurship and innovation.  This does not derive from committees but from people experimenting on the ground.  I have written about the innovation that accompanied the growth of the retail co-operative movement.

Minimalist and Maximalist Social Innovation

Mulgan cites the work of a Brazilian thinker, Roberto Mangabeira Unger, who in a new book, New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research (Palgrave MacMillan) distinguishes minimalist and maximalist social innovation.  Mulgan writes

“The minimalist view puts social innovations squarely within the third sector and: ‘Its resonance is with solidarity and communitarianism … within the tradition within classical liberalism that prizes voluntary associations as well as with the strand within socialist thinking that proposes a non-statist socialism.’

“By contrast, the maximalist view, Unger writes, is concerned with ‘the whole of society, of its institutional arrangements and of its dominant forms of consciousness … At its maximalist best, the social innovation movement [undertakes] the small initiatives that have the greatest potential to foreshadow, by persuasive example, the transformation of those arrangements and of that consciousness.'” (All ellipses and additions are Mulgan’s.)

I have argued, for example in my ebook “Community Development is Dead!” (see below) that community development is weak when tied into the third sector.  Local businesses are at best ignored.  Even social enterprises, whilst often similar to small and medium businesses, are designed over and against mainstream local businesses.

Innovation and the Third Sector

Mulgan and Unger are not arguing against social enterprises, so much as underlining the fact that social innovation can happen anywhere through the work and the risks taken by just about anybody.  It is not right to restrict social innovation to the third sector.  There are two reasons for that.

Third sector organisations can be just as moribund as public sector and large private sector organisations.  The third sector draws many people with alternative values and so if you’re looking for the entrepreneurial spirit, for social innovation, it is one place to look.  But large voluntary sector organisations can become just as ossified as other organisations of comparable size and age and even smaller groups just as readily opt for bureaucratic solutions.

The second reason is that a lot of social innovation does happen in the private sector, particularly in the local economy.  For many, their starting place may be different but their destination closely parallels that of social entrepreneurs.

The fact is neither of the main political parties has ever favoured local business or social innovation.  Both favour top-down, corporate planning solutions.  Their policies always seem to be about concentrating wealth and power in fewer hands.

This is the political change we need.  Neither main party embodies this approach, although Mulgan suggests, bizarrely, David Cameron’s Big Society is closest.  Corbyn has broken the mould but I do not as yet see any evidence his economic policies are close to understanding social innovation.

Still, whilst things are chaotic, we cannot be sure how things will pan out.  It will be interesting to see how the debate develops over the coming months, now that Labour has jettisoned the ridiculous idea it needs to win the next election.

0 Community Development in the Future

In this final post in the current community development sequence, I discuss community development in the future.

My ebook, “Community Development is Dead!” (see below) is my account of the current state of community development in England.  Other places recognise many of the issues we experience in England.

The problem is not funding. We have seen a decline in support from local authorities and churches over the last 20-30 years.

However, even this is a symptom of the decline in support for community development in England. The real problem as I explain in “Community Development is Dead!” runs deeper. The failure is systemic.  It stems from the failure of development workers to make the case for community development. There is no career structure for development workers.

It is predictable, as money becomes scarce, activities unable to make a case for themselves will suffer. This is the mindset that sees community development as a luxury, something we cannot afford in a recession.  Community development as an amateur pursuit, a view supported by the lack of career structure, means experienced workers move on to other better paid activities, leaving inexperienced workers unsupported.

We need to reconsider the way we do community development, by placing activists at the centre and asking how to support them. In future, fewer workers will be less likely to work in neighbourhoods.

Community Development Online

One alternative may be online work, where development workers can provide support through online consultancy. This will differ from traditional development work because it implies activists supported by development workers will do most of the work previously carried out by development workers.

So, for example, a situation analysis might be carried out by local people. The development worker might help them plan their analysis and guide them as they accumulate information. Some will argue development workers will be less equipped to do the work if they are not doing local research themselves. Others may argue this is exactly what local activists should have done in the first place.

As an online community development worker, I can provide support to several projects, anywhere in the country at far less than the cost of employing a full-time worker. This might enable groups to employ administrators, for example, if they have funds and help them become more effective even with relatively few resources.

Can this possibly work? I believe it can and a few pioneers can develop this new approach (and indeed other new approaches).

If this new approach catches on, quality will become important. Practitioners who choose this new way of working will need to organise to agree standards and a career structure for workers. As my generation moves towards retirement, where is the next generation of experienced workers going to come from?   There is likely to be more than one answer to this question, as practitioners attempt various approaches.

This blog is “Community Development Online” and so everything on it relates to community development in some sense.   I’m sure I shall return to this sequence in the future but for now I shall be moving onto a new topic. Take a look next Wednesday to find out what it is!

0 Brand Names in the Local Economy

Like many people I am sceptical about brand names. To my mind, the associations are with big corporations that use brand names as a substitute for personal, reliable service.

Of course, there is no reason local personal service has to be more reliable than established brands. A large corporation can afford to employ staff to handle complaints. A small local business may lack capacity to handle complaints.

I recently had a dispute with an established company. They made a mistake by ignoring my instructions; instructions they had requested. I complained and they offered to pay to recover from their mistake. I engaged a local service to attempt to set things right and the established company paid up promptly to cover the costs. As it happened the recovery process simply demonstrated their error was not recoverable but they did not haggle over the payment.

They could afford to be generous once they established they were at fault. They misinformed me from the start. In the shop, they told me I had a choice but their servicing department did not in fact respond to customer instructions. They need to decide whether they respond to customer instructions and if they do not make sure their workers understand their policy.  They believe they misinformed me in the shop, whilst my view is what they said in the shop made sense and they need  to review their policy.

You will note I have not mentioned the brand. Suffice it to say it is well-known and as their response to my complaint was positive I’m not going to denounce them, even though I do not agree with their policy. Their brand name is valuable to them and they ultimately act to protect it and the £200 they spent helping me recover from their error was presumably worth it. If I ever recommend their services to anyone I will also suggest they take certain precautions.

Brand Names and Local Businesses

So, does branding have any relevance to local businesses? Here are a few thoughts.

The corporations view brand names as their intellectual property. Brand names can be bought and sold. The biggest companies may own many brand names and if a local business is especially successful it might sell its name to a bigger company.

I use two terms that might in time become brand names. “Community Web Consultant” and “Community Development Online”. It is also possible my name might become associated with my services and so become a brand name.  It is hard to see how I can decide if or when any of these will happen.  The best I can do is recognise when it is happening.

Between them my two potential brand names convey something of what I offer, although not the entire story. I use a niche statement on my site for a clearer explanation of what I offer.

It is difficult to see how someone can know what to expect from my services solely from my brand names. Established brands might have names that do not give anything away about their products. Most people have an idea what Kelloggs or Adidas sell, even though these brand names do not give anything away!

My brand names will most likely be close enough to my activities in the foreseeable future. If I wake up one morning with a new idea that’s completely different to what I’m doing now, then I’m likely to find a new brand name!

Overall I’m not convinced brand names are all that important for small enterprises. They need to be used in the context of an overall marketing campaign.

Examples from the Voluntary Sector

Voluntary sector organisations have brand names; they are not restricted to commercial concerns.  A good name is a valuable asset for many large charities, for example.  Many actually seek better branding by changing their names, for example the Council for Voluntary Services changed its name to Voluntary Action a couple of decades ago.  The new name is easier to remember and so the change was probably worth any loss of recognition at the time of the change.

One final example is a well-established local voluntary sector organisation, based in Sheffield although its reach is global. Its name is its brand and those who know it generally hold the organisation in great affection. Its name is a very positive asset.

However its marketing is very poor, it lacks an effective marketing strategy and uses old technologies, poorly executed. I am confident that when it closes, as it will if it continues on its current course, its name will still be held in great affection.

Brand names can be helpful as a part of a marketing strategy but on their own they are not the be all and end all of marketing.

This is part of a sequence building upon the circuit questionnaire, the element about branding.

0 A Case for Regulation

There is common ground between Jeremy Corbyn, the new leader of the UK Labour Party and Bernie Sanders in the US, an influential contender for the Democrats’ leadership. The word used of both is “authenticity”.  Their political stance implies they favour regulation.

My purpose is to ask what that word “authenticity” means and why it has so much impact. The implication is that politics as we experience it somehow lacks authenticity. The political centre has moved far to the right.  Even left-wing politicians such as Tony Blair or Barack Obama occupy similar ground to right-wing politicians. Corbyn and Sanders have fewer associations with vested interests on the right and tap into a sense of independent thinking.  Whether this makes them electable is another matter. It will be interesting to see the long-term impact of their influence

A paper, Threat to Democracy: The Impact of “Better Regulation” in the UK, issued by the New Economics Foundation this week, shines light on the reasons for this perceived lack of authenticity. The primary purpose of politicians is to protect the interests of the people who vote for them. Politicians bought by these huge commercial concerns become inauthentic.

A Case for Regulation

The paper describes an activity introduced during the Coalition government (with roots in the previous Labour government). They aim to deregulate just about everything. The paper is not long and so I shall not go into detail. It shows deregulation is not in the interests of the economy, society, democracy or the European Union. The United States is one of the few countries that has gone further down this road than the UK. The paper makes the point that regulation and red tape are not the same thing and indeed shows how deregulation can result in an increase in red tape, when it suits big business.

The main point I want to make in this post is the case for regulation. The following is a paragraph from the report. I’ve added bullet points but otherwise it unchanged:

Local Business Benefits from Regulation

In other words, regulation is good for local businesses. Deregulation is abdicates democratic control of the economy, resulting in capital accumulated in the hands of very few people. They benefit because politicians allow them to.

Whilst people, when asked about red tape, might favour deregulation in theory, they tend to favour regulation when they contemplate its detailed impact. The report puts it:

“It seems that deregulation, in the abstract, is an attractive idea, but when confronted with specific protections, most people quickly recognise how important good regulation is to the quality of their lives. It’s also clear that tokenistic consultation measures are sufficiently flexible to allow this inconvenient discovery to be ignored.” (Page 11)

Politicians are finding most people do not support this campaign to empower the corporations and so introduce it under the radar. Many sense politicians are either selling out to unelected corporations or else not aware of what is happening (much deregulation does not need parliamentary approval).

What is to be done? Read the report and support its recommendations!

1 Local Activists Marginalised

How do we marginalise local activists? Are activists really somehow inferior to development workers? Some people argue it is unfair to deny activists the opportunity to train as a development workers but why so little training for activists?  There are no equivalents to community development National Vocational Qualifications for activists and this devalues their role in consequence.

By all means, provide training for activists who want to become development workers but most activists do not become development workers and their unique and central role should be recognised.  Vocational qualifications for activists are perhaps inappropriate as activism is essentially a voluntary role.  However, activists use the same skills in paid employment and so there is a vocational dimension to activism.  Activist training should not focus on vocation but certification can bear vocational applications in mind.

It is important to recognise activists’ unique and central role in communities. I’ve been an activist for most of my life and did not stop being an activist when I practiced as a development worker.  I found it important to understand they are different roles and you can’t effectively be both at one time.  I found my performance improved as a development worker when I dressed differently in the role.  My jacket and tie reminded me and the activists I worked with that my role was different.  In my home community I was an activist. working alongside other development workers.  This works for me, other development workers find different ways of being clear about the role they inhabit.

Training

Training for activists includes:

Training for activists should be developmental, by which I mean “learning by doing”.  It may be necessary to pass on some theory but the topics and approach should be as close as possible to real life experiences.  Activists in training plan, execute and evaluate their activities.  This way they set their own agenda without the need for outputs many professional trainers bring to community work.

Activists effect change.  They’re hands on people; paid or unpaid entrepreneurs.  Some may legitimately use their activities to generate personal income.  So, for example, a café owner might encourage local groups to use their café for their meetings.  I appreciate this may seem to be heresy but I do want to emphasise that running a community group is only one way activists can effect change.  We have overlooked the role of small businesses, for example, in bringing about change.

Do we really need more than one community development worker per city?  Perhaps it depends upon the size of the city but a small team is all a city needs to provide the necessary support.  And they should never talk to funding bodies on behalf of the groups they support.

It would be interesting to work out how a small development team might be supported without direct grant aid.  In the States, they fund organisers  through dues paid to citizens’ organisations.  This never took off in Britain. But buying in development support could be part of any grant application.  Community organisations could then pay a central team for the services they receive.

Administration

We need activists and we need a few development workers to support activists.  Another important type of support activists need is administration.  Many community workers, dedicated to a particular neighbourhood, end up doing administration for activist groups.  It is a waste of resources to pay a development worker to do administration.  I suspect the reason this happened so much is funding bodies are reluctant to fund administration and so fund more expensive development workers who spend most of their time doing administration because that is the work that needs doing.

It is incredible that it is so difficult to fund administration.  If there is one thing that would transform community work in the UK, it would be ready access to admin support.  Even if there are people willing to take it on voluntarily, there is always plenty more people can be getting on with and a good administrator can enable a lot of work simply by being there.  A central development work team could provide administration as a part of their services.  This might at least bring costs down, by removing the need to employ an administrator directly but it is not immediately obvious how they would be paid.

Activism as the Central Role

My ideal model would recognise activists as central to neighbourhood regeneration.  They need some developmental support and a small central team in any urban area should be adequate to provide it.  When activists organise they need administration support.  This is cheaper than development support and funding bodies should recognise it as a valid response to local needs.

This puts activists at the centre, recognising their central contribution.  They need development support but by relieving development workers of the burden of doing their admin, most places could manage with smaller teams over larger areas.  Administration can be found in creative ways.  A neighbourhood with a delivery organisation could perhaps dedicate time to supporting the representative activities of the local activists and perhaps the planning activities of a local partnership.  Anything else is a project and needs to be run by a delivery organisation.  My model for community development helps clarify the support activists need for their activities.

So, what do you think?  Do we undervalue activists?  What support do they need?

4 Setting a Goal

The key to marketing is being clear about what you offer. Why? Because if you’re not clear, how are you going to communicate with your customers?  Your potential customers, supporters or members will respond to a clear message.  So, setting a goal can help you convey exactly what you are offering visitors to your business and / or website.

From time to time you will have marketing campaigns and so you need to be clear about your goals.  This applies equally to marketing products or services for sale and to marketing a cause.

Your goal isn’t always to sell as many widgets as possible in the shortest possible time. You need to be clear about the following, when setting a goal:

Some Possible Goals

One approach is to interview potential clients and find out what products or services they need. So, here are some possible goals you may set as a result. Do note you will set different goals from time to time, as circumstances develop:

I’m sure you can add to this list. The main thing is to work on one goal at a time or at least, if you have several goals, make sure you don’t put them all on your home page!  Website visitors respond to clear messages and clear requests.

This post is part of a series based on the circuit questionnaire, the branding element.

0 Using Your Niche Statement

A client, a voluntary organisation, raised a concern about marketing during their session this week.  Having a clear niche statement about what you are about, a proposition or elevator pitch, doesn’t it conceal information from prospective members or supporters?  I suppose the fear is without the detail, inquirers might feel they have somehow been fooled.

Obviously, it depends on how you handle things.  Marketing is not a value free activity and can be used for dishonest purposes.  The best marketing, however, is educational.  If you are seeking allies or genuinely want to offer help with a particular problem, then you need to set out your stall.  Those who use it to exploit make it more difficult for everybody.

Take the analogy of a shop front. You might have a window display with a written statement to encourage people to enter your shop. Once inside maybe 20 out of every 100 will make a purchase.  I haven’t chosen 20 for any particular reason.  It may be many more in some shops and a lot less when considering, for example, visitors to websites.

Shop Window

These 20 would not have entered the shop had they not seen what’s in the window. They don’t see everything you offer just enough to engage their interest.  You need the other 80 visitors because you don’t know which of the 100 will make a purchase until they enter the shop.

Of the 80, some

Your Website

The same dynamic applies online. Your website home page or social media presence act as a shop front. Other pages on the website explain and educate and make offers. Online the numbers may be somewhat more adverse. Maybe only a few percent will make a purchase or sign up to your email list. These conversions are what you want to increase. Those who sign up are equivalent to those visitors who make a later purchase or refer friends to your shop.

The aim online is to engage interest through your home page or social media, for example, and then draw those who are interested into your site where you can provide more information.  This extra information is important. This morning I looked at a site where I am likely to make a purchase.  I have so far not used their offer because their site lacks the detailed information I need to decide.

It is not easy to provide all the information visitors needs a format that is accessible and usable.  It’s best to make a start and then gradually make improvements as you receive feedback or gain fresh insights.  But you won’t get feedback until people visit your site and so there is no need to fear attracting them with clear statements about what your site is about.  Those who are interested will visit and some of them may stick around.