Want Your Social Enterprise to Succeed? Manage Your Friends and Foes

Bureaucratic headaches happen in every country. Social enterprises are particularly vulnerable to such obstacles, especially if the start-up disrupts the status quo and must then defend itself against resistance by entrenched interests.

Bureaucratic headaches happen in every country. Social enterprises are particularly vulnerable to such obstacles, especially if the start-up disrupts the status quo and must then defend itself against resistance by entrenched interests. Every one of our projects has been hampered by one or more instances of official inertia, lack of support, bureaucratic foot-dragging, or even outright corruption.

You might, for example, complete all the appropriate application forms to receive a permit to start a business or enlarge a building, only to be told no by the local authorities, with no explanation as to why. In one case, an entrepreneur we were working with attempted to meet a senior government member on six occasions over as many months, only to have every confirmed meeting postponed at the last minute. The delays seriously compromised and almost destroyed the initiative.

One social entrepreneur we assisted had an idea that could significantly enhance medical services in a country hard hit by HIV/AIDS. His idea was first to computerize all medical records, eventually build an expert system, and then train nurses to do diagnostic and prescription work, which was being handled by the country's limited pool of highly overloaded doctors. To anyone looking from the outside, it seemed like a win-win-win.

Therefore, he was shaken by the negative responses to his proposed idea. Reactions from people in the health department, in local hospitals, and in public clinics ranged from complete indifference to outright hostility. He then learned that two years earlier, a well-established local subsidiary of a multinational software and consulting firm had sold a full-service health care management system to the country's health department. The system had then been force-launched in a number of public hospitals and clinics, at great expense, and was simply not working as hoped. The post-installation challenges had caused major disruptions in health care delivery, thereby creating a highly dissatisfied set of stakeholders, who were justifiably disillusioned and disgruntled.

This entrepreneur was nearly derailed in the very beginning by unexpected negative feedback from key stakeholders. Such poor political savvy has destroyed many a well-intentioned enterprise. That is why every start-up needs a sociopolitical strategy.

Identify your stakeholders.

Think through all the people and organizations that will be impacted by significant success of your venture. Think about parties that will benefit. Think about parties that will experience negative impacts or be inconvenienced. Think about all the parties whose support will be needed but may be indifferent to your cause. Then think about each party's possible reaction, so you can prepare for the resulting inevitable sociopolitics.

Categorize your stakeholders: allies, opponents, and needed indifferents.

Through our experiences in the field, we identified three important categories of stakeholders who could affect the success of your program: potential allies, primary opponents, and needed indifferents.

"Potential allies" are those who will benefit from and may be willing to commit support to your project. These people might be transactional partners (such as suppliers and distributors); leaders in commerce; members of local or national government; NGOs and nonprofits; well-wishers; employees of regulatory or commerce bodies; or local dignitaries, such as tribal chiefs, local healers, or even village elders. Among potential allies, you need to identify those who have meaningful influence in the market/environment of your project, and think about how to mobilize them, since often they will be the ones you'll most need to help you cope with opposition.

"Primary opponents" are those who will be adversely affected or greatly inconvenienced by your project's success and who also have the wherewithal to resist or delay its execution. Primary opponents who have meaningful power and influence must be identified as early as possible so you can prepare to deal with their concerns and reactions.

"Needed indifferents" are people or parties who are indifferent to your project's success but whose support, effort, or resources may be necessary. For instance, a government official responsible for the issuance of permissions, licenses, and certificates. While you may need the license to legally operate your enterprise, the official may have little knowledge of or interest in your beneficiaries or the purpose of your project. Other examples of needed indifferents are suppliers and/or distributors who do not see support of your program as particularly beneficial to them financially. Their supplies may be critical to your operations, but the supplier or distributor may see you as "small potatoes" and not worth the bother of timely support when supplies are short.

As you begin to categorize your stakeholders, beware of overkill: It is easy to spend an inordinate amount of time generating long lists of stakeholders whose actions are unlikely to have a major impact on your success. Confine your list to no more than the eight most important stakeholders. If you can't handle the top eight, your project is likely to be doomed anyway.

Develop a sociopolitical strategy.

The next step is to develop a strategy for mobilizing allies, managing opponents, and converting those who are indifferent. You will need to determine if you have the capabilities to influence these groups. If the answer is that you have no way of coping with the reactions of these stakeholders, particularly opponents, it's a pretty good sign that your enterprise will not be viable—at least not in your desired location at this time. Indeed, we learned from two Wharton Social Entrepreneurship Program projects that failing to plan for these stakeholders can lead to a significant waste of time, resources, and effort.

To develop an effective sociopolitical strategy, begin by methodically thinking through possible tactics for each major stakeholder, following one or more of the six tactical approaches listed here.

  • Clearly specify the response you need from a given stakeholder.
  • Identify major current issues occupying that stakeholder’s attention.
  • Deploy yours or an ally's strategic knowledge, skills, or capabilities germane to the stakeholder.
  • Deploy yours or an ally's physical and financial resources germane to the stakeholder.
  • Deploy your network connections or expanded network connections.

In the case of opponents, find a "safe haven" where you can establish a protected position without provoking immediate hostile opposition.

Each project's challenges, and of course yours, will be unique. For instance, you might very much want to block an opponent but simply do not have the wherewithal to do so. Or you might want to mobilize a potential supporter but are not able to generate interest on their part. Unfair as this may seem, our response to such difficulties is to say, "Life's unfair. Either find another way or stop fruitlessly wasting time and resources. There are other places to invest your time and effort."

We have seen the same missteps time and again. If our decade-plus experience working with social enterprises and studying them in the field isn't enough to convince you, we recently surveyed 300 active and aspiring social entrepreneurs this past summer as part of an ebook experiment we invited the GOOD community to participate in ("The Grave Mistake Many Social Entrepreneurs Make and How to Avoid It"). Those we surveyed—founders, CEOs, executive directors, managing directors, and other leading social entrepreneurs and supporters who hail from both for-profits and nonprofits and from all around the world—named navigating sociopolitics among their top three challenges. Though that may be more tough-love medicine than you are ready to take right now, it can mean the difference between the life and death of your social enterprise start-up. For even more, check out our new book on the subject, The Social Entrepreneur's Playbook.

Image from The Social Entrepreneur Playbook.

via GOOD / YouTube

Last Friday, millions of people in 150 countries across the globe took to the streets to urge world leaders to enact dramatic solutions to combat climate change.

The Climate Strike was inspired, in part, by Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old girl from Sweden who has captured worldwide attention for her tireless work to hold lawmakers responsible for the climate crisis.

The strike gave people across the planet the opportunity to make their voices heard before the U.N. General Assembly Climate Summit in New York City on Monday.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
Julian Meehan

Young leaders from around the world are gathering at the United Nations Headquarters in New York Saturday to address arguably the most urgent issue of our time. The Youth Climate Summit comes on the heels of an international strike spearheaded by Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old climate activist from Sweden, who arrived in New York via emissions-free sailboat earlier this month.

Translated from Swedish, "berg" means "mountain," so it may feel fated that a young woman with Viking blood in her veins and summit in her name would be at the helm. But let's go out on a limb and presume Thunberg, in keeping with most activists, would chafe at the notion of pre-ordained "destiny," and rightly so. Destiny is passive — it happens to you. It's also egomaniacal. Change, on the other hand, is active; you have to fight. And it is humble. "We need to get angry and understand what is at stake," Thunberg declared. "And then we need to transform that anger into action."

This new generation of activists' most pernicious enemy is denial. The people in charge — complacent politicians and corporation heads who grossly benefit from maintaining the status quo — are buffered from real-life consequences of climate change. But millions of people don't share that privilege. For them, climate change isn't an abstract concept, but a daily state of emergency, whether it comes in the form of "prolonged drought in sub-Saharan Africa…devastating tropical storms sweeping across Southeast Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific…[or] heatwaves and wildfires," as Amnesty International reportsare all too real problems people are facing on a regular basis.

RELATED: Greta Thunberg urges people to turn to nature to combat climate change

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
Climate Action Tracker

In 2016, 196 countries signed the Paris Agreement, pledging to combat climate change by taking action to curb the increase in global temperatures. The Paris Agreement requires countries to report on their emissions and what steps they're taking to implement those plans. Now that the countries are coming together again for the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York City, it's worth taking a look at what kind of progress they've made.

The Climate Action Trackerkeeps tabs on what each country is doing to limit warming, and if they're meeting their self-set goals. Countries are graded based on whether or not their actions would help limit warming to 1.5 degrees C.

According to a recent article from National Geographic, The Gambia, Morocco, and India are at the head of the class. "Even though carbon emissions in The Gambia, Morocco, and India are expected to rise, they'll fall short of exceeding the 1.5-degree Celsius limit," the article reads. Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United States, on the other hand, get a big fat F. "Projected emissions in Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States are far greater than what it would take to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius."

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet

September 20th marks the beginning of a pivotal push for the future of our planet. The Global Climate Strike will set the stage for the United Nations Climate Action Summit, where more than 60 nations are expected to build upon their commitment to 2015's Paris Agreement for combating climate change.

Millions of people are expected to take part in an estimated 4,000 events across 130 countries.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
Ottawa Humane Society / Flickr

The Trump Administration won't be remembered for being kind to animals.

In 2018, it launched a new effort to reinstate cruel hunting practices in Alaska that had been outlawed under Obama. Hunters will be able to shoot hibernating bear cubs, murder wolf and coyote cubs while in their dens, and use dogs to hunt black bears.

Efforts to end animal cruelty by the USDA have been curtailed as well. In 2016, under the Obama Administration, the USDA issued 4,944 animal welfare citations, in two years the numbers dropped to just 1,716.

Keep Reading Show less