Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Mike Shoemaker
Minneapolis, MN
Recent Activity
-
Mike commented on the article |The notes are more than a bit hard to interpret.
It's been a while since I listened to the podcast, but my recollection is that he is pretty anti- having several startups share a space. He'd rather people work out of their apartments...something about the creative atmosphere created by empty pizza boxes...and then come together once a week to share ideas and hear experienced entrepreneurs share their stories.
It's not much of an argument, but interesting that someone as prominent as Paul Graham would be pro incubator-ish activity and yet anti co-working (if I share your definition of co-working).
-
Mike commented on the article |
Nice article, Nathaniel. Here is a counter argument on co-working from Paul Graham of Y-Combinator. http://bit.ly/dk2eC
I don't recall exactly where in the podcast it falls, but the whole thing is good.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.
-
Mike commented on the article |I'm definitely with you, Nathaniel. In my reply below to Steve I also express my agreement with the need for a better "net" measure of success for all businesses.
As far as frustration with where investment dollars are being channeled, the pragmatist in me says that we need to make social enterprise just as profitable for investors as other forms of business. I think we can get there and I think we have to; you can only depend so heavily on people's goodwill and desire to make socially responsible investing/consumption decisions.
Like we're seeing in the field of green energy, it is very hard to get to widespread adoption unless/until it becomes (or, through regulation, is made) competitive from a price-performance standpoint.
-
Mike commented on the article |
Thanks, Steve. We're in total agreement. I'm not trying to defend all companies universally or suggest they all contribute equally to society. Rather, I'm cautioning against automatically attributing greater value to social enterprises simply because they have nobler mission statements/explicit development-oriented aspirations. Not saying the article tries to do this, but that was the implicit message I took away.
I think you're correct, as well, that if we could ever get to a fair measure of net social, environmental, and economic impact, it would be easier and more appropriate to make these kinds of judgments.
-
Mike commented on the article |
Reading this makes me think there is a storm brewing in Silicon Valley. Is there a growing divide based on the perception that a get-rich-quick culture is starting to replace the idealism of the past? Where is the angst and animosity coming from?
"...this hyperbole is why the nonprofit sector can have such a hard time interacting with the corporate world. It's hard to spent time with groups like Samasource that are trying to fundamentally shift the paradigm of outsourcing to create real growth and development opportunities for the developing world, or the Acumen Fund that is investing in local market solutions to water distribution, and then to be told that easier, faster, funner consumption of stuff is in the same ballpark. It's not even the same sport."
I don't agree much with this statement. I'm fine acknowledging they're different, but implicit is that one is inherently always better than the other.
Is a social business with 15 employees and 50 customers automatically better than a company like Amazon.com just because it has a nobler mission? Amazon has created employment for 20,000 people and generated enormous wealth that can be re-invested in other businesses, perhaps some "social." It has also given small booksellers an outlet for making a better living, similar to eBay, which is a primary source of income for 1.3 million people (and being replicated in the developing world).
Take intuit as another example. Why should they be less worthy? They have in my opinion done an admirable job over their history of democratizing ERP-like applications and giving small business the technology/tools they need to operate more efficiently. You no longer have to be able to afford an Oracle or SAP implementation to manage payroll and a chart of accounts.
Likewise, Mint.com may have sold out in some people's estimation, but it has done an admirable job of improving financial literacy and helping individuals (including me) make better financial decisions.
Imagine Intuit and Mint.com technology in the hands of social entrepreneurs around the world, allowing them to better run their businesses and make smarter choices. That would be world-changing, even if unsexy because it's payroll and accounting. In fact, it's not much different than a salesforce automation or internet search and advertising company helping social enterprises better measure their impact.
Similarly, you say,"All due respect to Zappos, a better way to buy shoes is not the same as changing the world." But how different is Zappos from Tom's Shoes? A cynic could say Zappos is giving us a better way to buy shoes and Tom's is making us feel better about buying more shoes. Moreover, Zappos is one business decision away from being Tom's.
I agree, however, with your other point. The most ambitious and talented young entrepreneurs are starting to migrate to the social enterprise sector, making it in essence the next "high tech" in its ability to draw the best and brightest. And so we are likely to see more and more amazing things from these individuals. That's fantastic and desirable.
But that won't negate the need for innovations that are less strictly "social" in their orientation and more like Zappos and Netflix.
Social enterprise may stand apart, but I disagree that we should think it stands above. And I really struggle with the idea that a "holier than thou" mentality might make non-profits and social enterprises look down on the accomplishments of these "other" companies. This has been the trend in the past, and I see little good that has come of it.
-
Mike commented on the article |"...there has been a growing recognition that the process of understanding how people interact with their peers and their environments in order to design new products is not just useful for companies, but can be an integral process of producing better solutions to social problems, as well."
Well put! And an incredibly exciting intersection of disciplines. The tie-in with behavioral economics, as it relates to both product design and design of programs and policies, is equally fascinating (and the focus of my blog - http://humanventures.wordpress.com)
-
Mike commented on the article |Trying to carve out a separate niche for "social enterprises" is not dreaming big enough. I couldn't agree more. How else can I help reinforce the message? - http://humanventures.wordpress.com
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits