In the course of some research I did into HR problems in social enterprises, I found a few solutions to the mission drift problems posed by the conflicting logic and principles within the human resource element: recruiting people with the right mind-set, inexperienced individuals who could adopt the organisation’s vision, and ensuring that employees were sufficiently vested in the social mission and the business model of the social enterprise.
Although the tips below came about from research into human resources within social enterprises, the lessons can be applied to any organisation that can afford to have such an approach.
BALANCED MIND-SET RECRUITMENT
One of the ways to avoid mission drift is through the employment of individuals, at least in some key positions, with a “balanced mind-set” which means people who are capable of working with several principles in mind. They recognise that there is a limited “pool of employees experienced enough to help maintain the balance” in a social enterprise between the social and the economic or commercial missions.
Given that social enterprises straddle the social and commercial sectors, it is highly unlikely that they would be able to find employees whose skills and mentality are already in line with exactly how the social enterprise is operating, i.e. in a hybrid work environment. Most potential employees have been trained to operate in a social or commercial context/sector. “As a result, it is rarely possible to populate the social enterprise with “hybrid individuals”, and instead the social enterprise must organize in ways that allow individuals from one sector or the other to work together effectively”. This is what is known as “socialisation”.
More relevant, though, is that social enterprises shouldn’t hire people who are prone to thinking a certain way and incapable of changing their minds. Nor should social enterprises hire people with a charity mindset, who think they are doing the organization and the beneficiaries of the social mission a favour. Studies carried out by many authors suggest that this is a key problem which leads to mission drift (especially in microfinance) and which should therefore be avoided. This is a problem because of the discretionary authority which they have.
For example, if they are told that they will get to decide whether to issue a loan to a poor person, it may very well be that they focus on the individuals who are more grateful to these individuals rather than the people who have the most potential to multiply and magnify the impact of the assistance that they receive.
Recruitment in a social enterprise must be unique and tailored. A person having been the strategic manager at Johnson and Johnson or another global organization should not necessarily be given additional weight in the hiring process is the conclusion drawn from my research. Similarly, having worked at Red Cross for a number of years will not necessarily help an organization achieve its social mission and can be expected to contribute even less in terms of the commercial goals.
HIRE BLANK SLATES
In such situations, it is better for social enterprises to start from zero and hire people who are professional blank-slates, as it were. They are not going to come with ‘this is how we used to do this at the other organization’ and other similar excuses which could cause tensions. Training is a key part of any job and it is therefore a key opportunity for a social enterprise to mould their employees into the image of a hybrid worker/colleague. This is why leadership in a social enterprise is an extra important role. The organisation cannot simply rely on other people being able to “do their jobs” with minimal supervision based on previous experience. Rather, it is quite possible that experience might make things worse for the social enterprise.
An often cited example of a social enterprise which has successfully used the recruitment of inexperienced people is the Los Andes Bank, a microfinance institution in Bolivia. The organisation realised there were many individuals who were skewing the work of the company in one or the other direction (social and commercial), based on their reasons for joining the bank. The management realised that the discretionary power inherent in their positions allowed these individuals to negatively impact the work of the bank and created a significant problem of mission drift.
They resolved this by hiring fresh university graduates and then teaching them about the social mission and how to carry out their duties with that in mind. These individuals are not inclined to favour either of the goals of the organisation and so can be primed to treat the two competing logics equally. This would naturally mean higher costs in running the organisation. It is here that a strategic decision needs to be made by the management: is this added cost worth the preservation of the mission? Or is the preemption of potential mission drift, with unpredictable consequences, more important?
It is recommended, insofar as is possible, to adopt this second strategy to avoid mission drift: hire inexperienced people, or people without set ways of thinking, at least. But where the conditions do not allow for that, then they should hire the best in their field and then start an intensive socialisation process where mission orientation is carried out and they are trained in the other aspect (social, if they have commercial experience; and commercial, if they are coming from the third sector).
Social enterprises are in a position to break a somewhat vicious feature of the modern day, growth driven economy and at the same time gain a competitive advantage relative to their industry and their organisation form, by discarding the ‘experience required’ myth and focusing solely on what particular individuals can bring to the table in that particular situation. This strategy costs more at the start but should lead to significant benefits in the future.
ENSURE EMPLOYEE BUY-IN
Another way to use the workforce to avoid mission drift is to ensure that employees buy-in to the organisation’s social mission. There are both financial and non-financial ways to get the employees to align with the mission of the social enterprise. Financially, they can be given a stake in the success of the organisation by having the ability to monetarily benefit from improved performance and social/commercial balance.
It is important that they take ownership of their work and are vested in it as much as the owners. One other way recommended to social enterprises is to create a collective culture which is based on the simple principle that hybridity is the order of the day. People are not expected to be charities but nonetheless must exercise social responsibility in their work, both internally and externally. The enterprise can accomplish this also by engaging with the professional ecosystem, that is, organisations which are engaged in similar hybrid work.
These organisations can exchange notes and anecdotes which can help the employees understand how it works elsewhere, avoid the common mistakes and pitfalls, and have a sense of belonging and community (more on this some other time). It would be beneficial to the organisation in this case to craft a single narrative, preferably when being instituted and then using this narrative in the long run.
LEADERSHIP
Finally, tying it all together is the leadership of the organisation. Another way of keeping a social mission alive and thriving is through the activities of engaged “and robust… leaders who are committed to dual missions despite the all too often preference for profit missions in the business community”. Leaders who are capable of keeping the dual mission “alive in the minds of stakeholders” by voicing the social mission in different ways, by crafting a powerful and authentic narrative for both the employees and the customers, can help maintain the mission as a central focus of the organisation, and earn both internal and external legitimacy for their organisation.
They have the task of building up an organisation culture which will be unique to the organisation without loyalty to any industry standard, insofar as possible. They can accomplish this by co-opting powerful external actors and encouraging and contributing to the “emergence of other social enterprises” which serves their own image. Having a strong (and visible) internal culture centred around the social mission will also ensure that people will understand the social enterprise is not simply greenwashing. The duty to accomplish this falls upon the leadership of the social enterprise.
Social enterprise leaders who have fully embraced their organisation’s hybrid identity will be better positioned to instil similar values in the employees by for example removing “explicit reference to ideology” — that is the principles of the established sectors, and instead simply construct and reinforce “routines that affirm ideology without referring to it”. This type of leadership would also remove internal conflicts (depending on whether the organisation has integrated, differentiated, or selectively coupled corporate design). It is thus extremely important that individuals who are leading social enterprises are clearly aware of the composition of their organization and the complexities of running a social enterprise. This is important not only for their own duties but for the rest of the workforce.
