Culturally determined opportunities for entrepreneurship are often disrupted by entities external to indigenous people. Crawford (2002, p.60) wrote: “The State-Nation, a model invented in Europe, was exported around the world. It contributed to the marginalisation and even the exclusion of the languages and the cultures that could not acquire an official or national status in the state

There is rich heterogeneity among indigenous peoples, and some of their cultural values are often incompatible with the basic assumptions of mainstream theories of entrepreneurship.

Some indigenous economies display elements of egalitarianism, sharing and communal activity, contrasting capitalism as it is known in the West.

Perhaps the most important finding is that the causal variable behind entrepreneurship is not simply an opportunity, but rather one’s cultural perception of opportunity.

Opportunity identification is culturally influenced, as are definitions of and the measurement of success. Mainstream society may give paramount importance to economic performance, growth in sales, growth in productivity, growth in profit, share value and growth in market share. So do many indigenous people and groups with many stating that their entrepreneurial ventures must be financial able to compete before they can deliver the other benefits often sought. In this respect, financial viability is not an end in itself, but rather a precondition necessary for the achievement the success sought, e.g., respect for and preservation of traditional values and practices, reduction of poverty, improvement in living conditions, employment creation, and so on.

“those who have poor access to the opportunities offered by the regular economy, are likely to be over-represented in the underground economy”.

the best way to foster development among it indigenous people is to redress past wrongs by recognising indigenous claims to land and resources, with these to form the basis for economic development by indigenous people.

the individuality versus collectivity paradox.

Independent entrepreneurship is not attractive to everybody, and should not be forced upon people with incompatible values. Some indigenous communities believe in elements of egalitarianism, sharing and communal activity.

Some communities have a propensity for co-operation in entrepreneurship.

That which is created is consumed or saved for personal use or exchanged through non-market cultural mechanisms such as the potlatch among indigenous people of the northwest coast of Canada (Dana, 2007b). Subsistence self-employment may take the form of hunting (Kassam, 2005), fishing (Light and Dana, 2013), or farming

An individual may give business to another with whom a relationship has been established, to ensure that this person will reciprocate.

Even where there are no market transactions at all, it does not mean that is no exchange. Wealth is created by individuals and within the community, but not necessarily through the creation and sale of goods and services for profit.

Indigenous enterprise is often environmentally sustainable.

Much of the entrepreneurial activity conducted by indigenous people does not take place in the markets of the modern economy.

In contrast to mainstream societies, where firms have regular working hours, work in indigenous communities is often irregular, depending on animals, the weather or the tide

“the indigenous ‘team’ involved in new venture creation and development may involve not only the entrepreneur and the business’ entrepreneurial team but also the entrepreneur’s family, extended family, and/or the community. Thus, in indigenous businesses, there are more stakeholders involved than with non-indigenous businesses.

when a person from an indigenous group starts a business, it may be difficult for people from unlike cultures to understand fully the causal variables and rational behind attitude toward enterprise.

Indigenous people are often close to nature and in some cases depend on immediately available resources, such as animals or fish

While mainstream economics suggest that rationally one might choose to maximise profit, we learn from indigenous people that entrepreneurship also has non-economic causal variables

What does tie indigenous approaches together as original inhabitants is a special attachment to land, that in most cases has been disrupted by relatively recent experience with colonisation (military and/or economic) usually by the nations of the core and there is usually a related desire to reassert control over traditional territories and rebuild their communities with entrepreneurship and enterprise, shaped by history, culture and values,

“indigenous entrepreneurship is more holistic than non-indigenous entrepreneurship; it focuses on both economic and non-economic objectives”

Research is revealing that there is rich heterogeneity among indigenous peoples

Cultural values of indigenous peoples are often incompatible with the basic assumptions of mainstream theories, which may be based on different set of cultural values

sharing among the Inuit, “the result is an economy that, from Alaska to Greenland, optimises social inclusiveness rather than the maximisation of individual or family economic well-being

“as recently as 2001, there was no extant concept of ‘indigenous entrepreneurship’ in the scholarly literature of entrepreneurship and related disciplines.”

“commerce is an even more contradictory activity than either agriculture or stock raising, since it implies the deliberate negation of generosity, with market relations taking the place of sharing”

Social organisation among indigenous people is often based on complex kinship ties, and not created in response to market needs.

Egalitarianism may be said to lead to sharing and communal activities, which appear frequently in indigenous communities. In some cases it appears that the principles of equality provide a basis for identity. Thus, in some instances, Western business values conflict with traditional values.

the conception of en-trepreneur as modern- day warrior in an economic realm refl ects the notion that entrepreneurship can build on traditions of independence and participation in commerce that were traditional for many Indig-enous communities.

in the long run, a healthy economy of interdependent businesses run by entrepreneurs creates many potential sources of revenue for local governments

the actions of warrior entrepre-neurs will contribute to communities becoming healthier and more vi-brant, self- determining, and self- suffi cient places to live, work, and pla

Building a place for entrepreneurship that recog-nizes these connections and refutes the notion that entrepreneurship necessarily involves becoming a “sell- out” is a critical part of making entrepreneurship attractive to individuals who are proud of their Indig-enous heritage and committed to strengthening their communities.

agents of self- determination both at the individual level and in terms of contributing to the capacity of their nation as a whole to be self- determining

warrior entrepreneurs, together with other entrepre-neurs and community- owned enterprises, are creating a better future for their nations

entrepreneurship can bring about a change of attitude within a community.

Others around warrior entrepreneurs will likely no-tice their transformation over the course of running a business, which can inspire people to do the same in their own lives

entrepreneurship has become one of a limited number of options through which people can put themselves in a position to be self- suffi cient and avoid the dependency associated with poverty or the lack of control over working conditions associated with many laboring jobs while staying in traditional communities

A core component of being a warrior is to target the ingrained fear within one-self and to transform it and use it as a tool to fulfi ll one’s aspirations.4

share their catch with the communit

Indigenous entrepreneurs provide more opportunities to employ Indigenous youth rather than losing them to the city

lost profi ts do not deter warrior entrepreneurs from running their businesses in ways that develop their local economies.

Warrior entrepreneurs may diff er from other Indigenous entrepre-neurs in that they are fervently focused on the wider benefi ts their entre-preneurial activity has for their communities. Being a modern- day In-digenous warrior involves generating social unity and achieving freedom and happiness for community members.

Entrepreneurs can play a productive role in rebuilding Indigenous econ-omies

Indigenous values and actions that a warrior entrepreneur could incor-porate in his or her entrepreneurial activities

rebuild Indigenous communities

beyond rejecting non- Indigenous values, warrior entrepreneurs may integrate and strengthen traditional Indigenous values and actions in their entre-preneurial activities.

values such as sharing and redistribution

Rejecting depen-dency as way of life is one important way in which a warrior entrepre-neur can play an anticolonial role

a business that stands on its own two feet is a concrete rejection of stereotypes about Indigenous people

Entrepreneurship can be a way to step outside of this dis-abling aspect of life in communities and to show through actions that one is capable of steering one’s own course and being successful on one’s own terms.

starting a business can be seen as an anticolonial action by refusing to be mired down in bu-reaucratic structures and to be put on a level playing fi eld with non- Indigenous entrepreneurs.

Economic activity and wealth accumulation such as this, where entrepreneurial chiefs and citizens leveraged who they were (families with specifi c rights and obligations, such as to forests), what they knew (knowledge of their assets, including trees and how to transform those assets into goods such as clothing), and whom they knew

In a perfect world, Dave would throw these passengers overboard, but he will usually settle for con-fronting and teaching them about First Nations people and his commu-nity.

we understand the process of starting and running a business as entrepreneurs leveraging who they are, what they know, and whom they know in order to discover or create entrepre-neurial opportunities.

entrepreneurship is one av-enue through which First Nations and other Indigenous peoples can build their own organizations in their own ways to fulfi ll their own pur-poses

try to run my business in a way that upholds our communities’ values and laws, like creating harmony and being humble.”

for this article, we have in mind entrepreneurs who start small businesses primarily intended to serve the local community,

Institutions that do not support Indigenous self- determination should be critiqued and protested against, whereas institutions that respect Indigenous rights and worldviews should be praised, supported, and strengthened

h e term “warrior” is used by some in Indigenous communities to refer to any-one who stands up for the community or represents it in a positive way

there are Indigenous “word warriors,” intellectu-als who interact with both the Indigenous and non- Indigenous world in order to bring about change.14 He contrasts the idea of word warriors with “Indigenous philosophers,” who focus on and interact with only Indigenous knowledge in order to preserve Indigenous culture

“band capitalism” in which business development keeps community interests in view and under the control of community leaders.2

For In-digenous peoples, colonial mindsets can involve fear, a lack of agency, and an unhealthy dependence on others.1

it could prove useful in encouraging Indigenous people to see entrepreneurship as an option that can strengthen their communities and families economically and politically.

colonialism, which is a “narrative in which the Settler’s power is the fundamental reference and assumption, inherently limiting In-digenous freedom and imposing a view of the world.”

only some Indigenous people who are entrepreneurs will have the motivation and capacity to run their business in a warrior way.

the fundamental goals of an In-digenous warrior are to live life in an Indigenous way, to protect or work toward peace, to generate social unity, to work toward decolonization, and to achieve freedom and happiness.

we outline a conception of “warrior entrepreneur,” which is a modern- day Indigenous warrior who operates in the economic realm with the in-dependence and sense of commitment to community well- being

“Rebuilders of Indigenous economies” refers to revital-izing the Indigenous economic activity

three functions of Indigenous entrepreneurs who operate in a war-rior way: anticolonial actors, rebuilders of Indigenous economies, and agents of self- determination.

accruing surplus wealth from economic activity has a long tradition and is thus not always colonial.

entrepreneurship by Indigenous peoples is not always motivated by a desire to be anticolo-nial, to be part of rebuilding local Indigenous economies, or to create self- determining individuals and communities. For many, starting and running a successful business is enough of a challenge.

colonial values and practices include profi t, growth, competition, aggression, amorality, quantifi cation, and exploitation

Th e idea of warrior entrepreneur could contribute to an understand-ing of entrepreneurship by Indigenous peoples

In some Indigenous communities, and in the views of some writers, en-trepreneurship is seen as a foreign method of organizing that was ad-opted aft er colonization. From this perspective, entrepreneurs such as Dave are “sellouts,” “colonials,” or “too white.” Entrepreneurship is re-garded as a particularly invidious extension of capitalist economies that emphasizes individual wealth creation at the expense of traditional practices of wealth redistribution

we conceptualize Indigenous culture as a continuous stream of values, beliefs, and practices that stretches from the past to the current day.

a system of redistribution where wealth and prestige were generated through giving away items such as tools, blankets, ceremonial objects, and food.26 Th e more you gave away, the more wealth you accrued.

For non- Indigenous peoples, colonial mindsets are characterized by rac-ism, arrogance, complacency, and the “othering” of Indigenous peoples in order to justify the oppression of Indigenous people and the privi-lege of non- Indigenous people.

profound changes, however, do not preclude viewing contemporary Indigenous entrepreneurship as evolving from historical economic practices that re-semble modern- day entrepreneurship.

Being a warrior involves rec-ognizing any colonial mindsets within oneself and overcoming any as-sociated personal ingrained fear associated with these mindsets.1

Th e challenge for Indigenous warriors, therefore, is to con-tinue walking uniquely Indigenous paths that merge contemporary and traditional values, beliefs, and practices.

“Anticolonial actors” refers to the role that warrior entrepreneurs can play in battling existing colonial mindsets and institutions.

Indigenous entrepreneurship today clearly diff ers from historical economic activity in some respects. Contemporary entrepreneurship by Indigenous peoples such as the Nuu- chah- nulth largely takes place within the contexts of colonialism and capitalism rather than within the context of Indigenous spirituality and economic redistribution.2

we proceed by fi rst out-lining a conception of an Indigenous warrior. Next, we clarify what we consider to be Indigenous entrepreneurship. Following that, we develop the three core components of what it means to be a warrior entrepre-neur.

Our us-age of the word “warrior” is intended to build on these interpretations rather than on the battle- hungry and usually doomed caricatures of In-digenous warriors found in Hollywood movies.

“Agents of self- determination” highlights the role that warrior entrepreneurs can have in increasing both community self- suffi ciency and a sense of agency within commu-nities that are grappling with enforced cultures of dependency.

Modern Indigenous warriors target thinking with colonial mindsets and institutions that hold back Indige-nous peoples

entrepreneurship can be linked to the political, cultural, and social goals common to many Indigenous peoples.

Warriors combat colonial mindsets both inside the “colo-nized” Indigenous peoples and in non- Indigenous “colonizers.”

it could prove useful in encouraging Indigenous nations to make entre-preneurship a larger part of their economic development plans rather than focusing almost exclusively on businesses developed at the band or tribal council level

I call the shots

Indigenous entrepreneurs across North America are following their dreams and providing income and spin- off benefi ts for their families and communities, but despite these productive roles, entrepreneurship remains, at least in some communities, contentious. Many are wary that entrepreneurship could erode Indigenous culture

entrepreneurship can play an important role in the rebuilding of Indigenous economies and that it can be linked to traditional practices and can support Indigenous ways of life.3 Further, we argue that entrepreneurship is critical to build-ing healthy economies

many remote Indigenous communities now have relatively weak econo-mies. Oft en there are few entrepreneurs with businesses and few places to spend money within a community.

An important consequence of this notion of economic leakage or the absence of a “multiplier eff ect” is that other forms of economic de-velopment do not tend to produce the same economic benefi ts that they would in a community with a better- developed economy where money generated from large- scale economic development would cycle within the community rather than making a hasty exit.

I see myself as doing what I can to get us back to that type of community, where Indigenous people trade with one another and will go out of their way to buy from other Indigenous people and to not buy from places like Wal- Mart. I’m starting to think of my business as playing a small part in the rebuilding of the Native economy that was once here.”

improving the attitudinal climate of a community

If becoming an entrepreneur is regarded in Indigenous communities as being colonial or a sell- out, it is likely that many of the brightest and most capable young people will avoid it. If, on the other hand, being an entrepreneur is recognized as protecting and strengthening the interests of Indigenous peoples and battling colonial mentalities and institutions, more people will be inter-ested and more likely to become business owners.

Perhaps it is worth refusing the cult(ure) of the Entrepreneur.

market norms crowding out social norms

Safekeepers guard and conserve past social breakthroughs; explorersevaluate the past, and monitor the present and future, to discover new opportunities for creatingdisruption in the status quo; and advocates seek out and form alliances to influence action forchange.

As the discourses of the Entrepreneur and entrepreneurialism become increasinglydominant in the nonprofit sector, actors such as these, and the value(s) they bring to the non-profit sector and to civil society—not to mention the importance of teamwork and collaborationin engendering social change—will be increasingly crowded out.

his article has argued against thedominance of the discourses of the Entrepreneur and entrepreneurialism—and not againstentrepreneurs, for that would make no sense.

agitation for social change requires the col-laborative efforts of a team of actors writ large—entrepreneurs, yes, but also safekeepers,explorers, and advocates.

some win and some lose, for ultimately economicsuccess is born of competition.

The market that scholars and prac-titioners fear when they contemplate the marketization of the nonprofit sector is not the one thatserves as the basic model of economic theory: a place where goods and services are exchanged.Nonprofits exchange goods and services as a matter of course. It is the neoliberal market whichraises alarms (see Eikenberry, 2009b; Sandberg, 2013) because it is based not on a model ofconsumerism, but on one in which all things are measured by their worth as enterprises andby their ability to compete—“not a super-market society, but an enterprise society”

it is possible that there isroom in Schumpeter’s theory for scholars to formulate appropriate connections between theconceptions of the Entrepreneur and creative destruction and, for example, social entrepreneur-ship and the engenderment of larger social change. But thus far those connections have not beenmade. Rather, social entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship in the nonprofit sector have becomemore of “a slogan or inspiring phrase”than theoretically grounded principles

If we scrutinize what drives Schumpeter’s Man of Action, though, we find somethingless shiny and brilliant.

ecomingenterprising involves much more than simply becoming innovative and tolerating risk in thepursuit of new opportunities

performance-minded prac-titioners are similar to the change agents of social enterprise described above in that they are allgoal-driven in their behavior and endlessly seek opportunities for action

the conduct of theEntrepreneur and the personality of the Entrepreneur

“creative destruction”

Evidence suggests that a more strategic, more entrepreneurialized nonprofit field is one inwhich the sustenance of the nonprofit organization does indeed become of paramount impor-tance (Sandberg, 2013), so much so that the beneficiaries of the nonprofit become increasinglymarginalized from it

the Entrepreneur is an economic actor—and specifically a capi-talist one

‘dirty’aspects of entrepreneurship are effectively denied”(Jones &Spicer (2009) p. 40). It is these “dirty aspects”of the Entrepreneur that hold significantimplications for the nonprofit sector.

thecurrent “enterprise culture”in Western society ascribes predominantly positive cultural, moral,and economic value to the Entrepreneur, such that he6 stands “alongside democracy andfreedom,”exemplifies “the good life,”

in order to be trulyeffective—indeed, to engender change and to make an impact—nonprofits must become morestrategic in their approach to service provision, advocacy efforts, fundraising, and so on. Thisprocess involves learning how to develop organizational goals (i.e., mission statements, orga-nizational visions), devise formal plans to achieve the goals (i.e., strategic plans), and developan understanding of the internal and external barriers which might impede progress toward thegoals (i.e., through SWOT analyses and program evaluation).

they have had to become more skilled in fiscal accountability and in programevaluation and assessment, and, as such, are at risk of losing the passion for charity, caring,and giving that initially drove many practitioners into nonprofit work in the first place

Such relational distance between a nonprofit and its beneficiaries sharply diminishes thenonprofit’s ability to engender the caring, trust, and relationship-building that is essential forthe development of social capital, which itself is essential for the smooth functioning of a liberaldemocracy

the enterprise model, which is inherent to the neoliberal market-place, engenders a model of interpersonal relations based on competition, and on our so con-ducting ourselves that we become more effective competitors, rather than on caring andcompassion, values which are vital for the communal interaction, collective deliberation, andparticipatory decision-making that help sustain a liberal democracy

By masking the self-interested, individualistic, and destructiveaspects of the nature of the Entrepreneur while at the same time glorifying his creative, risk-taking, and leadership aspects, it becomes easier to promote the adoption of an entrepreneurialmodel. Indeed, it becomes desirable.

“performance mindset.

neoliberalism seeks not only toinfuse society with the enterprise model so that individuals must engage with it in a varietyof capacities, but also to encourage individuals to think of themselves and all their relationshipsthrough the framework of the enterprise

ntrepreneurialism and the enterprise model are being injected into thenonprofit sector under the guise of strategic management

Schumpeter often refers to the figure we might consider the Entrepre-neur as the “Man of Action.”This figure fights against the old guard in order to implementsomething new, overcomes obstacles and battles resistance, is active and energetic, is an effec-tive leader, is innovative in his creation of solutions to existing problems, and, feels no internalresistance to change

earning to compete

TheEntrepreneur might want to achieve social change, but he wants to do so on his terms and insuch a manner that he achieves power and independence for himself along the way

it is not enough sim-ply to have an idea; the Entrepreneur must put it into action. Such a mindset necessitates that hedevise innovative solutions to entrenched problems, be able to tolerate risk, and be proactive inimplementing solution

the Entrepreneur is to a large extent self-interested. Moreover, he is “self-centred [sic],”motivated by “the will to conquer ...and...the joy of creating, of getting thingsdone, or simply exercising one’s energy and ingenuity”

large-scale social change brought about as a result of social entrepreneurship or entrepreneur-ship in the nonprofit sector is often framed as being the result of a particular kind of person.

the nature of the destruction involved is treatedwith something of a light touch.

the discourses associated with social enter-prise and social entrepreneurship differ from those associated with a more traditional notion ofthe nonprofit organization. Not only do social enterprises differ in their organizational form andgoals, they also express different values and preferences. The customary notion of the nonprofitorganization is one that demonstrates the importance of both engagement and care.

This is most readily demonstrated by thegrowing movement and influence of social entrepreneurship in the sector.

When Schumpeter’s conception of creative destruction is openly discussed in relation tosocial entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship in the nonprofit sector, primary emphasis is placedon the “creative,”with little acknowledgment of the “destruction”involved.

Concomitant with thenonprofit sector’s increased marketization over the past several generations is its entrepreneur-ialization. That is, the notions of the entrepreneur and of entrepreneurialism—particularly ofbecoming an Entrepreneur and being entrepreneurial—have proliferated in a remarkably shorttime and are taking firm hold in the nonprofit sector.

one of three specific rolesin the sociopolitical landscape: (a) as developers of the democratic capabilities of individualsthrough education, training in problem-solving, and civic virtues; (b) as conduits of informationbetween groups of people through the communication of information to the public, the pro-vision of a voice for people in the political process, and service as representatives of groupsof people and their collective interests; and (c) as coordinators of group sentiment by actingas a means of resistance to tyranny, resolving conflicts, and coordinating policy recommenda-tions

In many ways social entrepreneurialism is presented as an intervention forrather than an aid to society

social enterprises

the primary objective of entrepre-neurial management is the pursuit of opportunities to engender change in an embedded environ-mental, community, or social problem such that perhaps nonprofits will no longer need toprovide services or facilitate the processes of civic engagement.

Nonprofits and their role in American society are also defined by the discourses associatedwith civil society. These discourses define nonprofits as civic actors (rather than solely econ-omic actors) such that they play a fundamental role in maintaining social order in democraticsocieties by promoting freedom and pluralism (viz. their encouragement of individuals to actin the public interest)

In other words, dis-courses that become dominant, by definition, diminish the capacity to either maintain ordevelop alternative discourses and, thus, alternative modes of thinking and behaving.

Social enterprises andsocial entrepreneurialism, however, emphasize change and impact:

The first emphasizes an economic role for nonprofits, in that they provide servicesto and a voice for individuals who, through the normal functioning of the marketplace, have lostthe ability to be rational economic actors and thus are marginalized not only from the market-place, but also from society and from the protection of the government.

eavilyemphasizes the role of an often dynamic individual in reforming, revolutionizing, andfundamentally changing organizational, community, environmental, and social circumstances(hopefully) for the better.

the social entrepreneur, or as Dees (2001) puts it,the “change agent,”whose broad purpose is to.adopt a social mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value);.recognize and relentlessly pursue new opportunities to serve that mission;.engage in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning;.act boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand; and.exhibit heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomescreated.

the engenderment of social capital

marketization provides nonprofits with benefits, such as greaterefficiency and innovation, but at the same time affects their ability to fulfill their traditionalroles as guardians of societal values, service providers, advocates for the interests of local com-munities, and purveyors of social capital

The article proceeds in the following manner

the increasing influence of the values and logic of themarketplace on the nonprofit sector, its so-called marketization

discourses

I have deliberately chosen to use masculine pronouns in my discussion of the characteristics and behavior of theEntrepreneur because the Entrepreneur is typically and traditionally presented as male in the literature, as my discussionof Schumpeter’s “Man of Action”demonstrate

"[S]ociety is not like a machine that is created at some point in time and then main-tained with a minimum of effort; it is being continuously re-created, for good or ill, by its members. This will strike some as a burdensome responsibility, but it will summon others to greatness."

the questionable modern notion that individuals need only assume responsibility for themselves in order to enjoy social well-being.

It's worth asking how modem democracies have evolved to accept individualistic social norms that would cause tribal societies, military units, and sports teams to collapse.

olunteering, say, or being helpful to neighbors or addressing social problems-is consid-ered optional (though it is esteemed)

Beyond taxation to pay for the social safety net, we don't ask or expect citizens to assume responsibility for the well-being of anyone outside their families.

What we don't have is a collective belief that with citizen-ship comes a responsibility to serve society.

As the field of social entrepreneurship continues to expand, it may foreshadow a new stage of democracy-one animated by citizens who are actively involved in building, shaping, and renewing organizations to improve society. As such, it may also come to redefine citizenship.

In wealthy democracies, social entrepreneurs spend as much time renewing old institutions as they do building new ones. In poor, weak, or failed states, however, social entrepre-neurs are more often focused on basic needs which people in Western democracies take for granted.

It is difficult for social entrepre-neurship to flourish without a baseline of security and social order.

a kind of activism is emerging that is more concerned with problem solving than voicing outrage.

Outside activists have convinced companies that they need to change, while social entrepreneurs working on the inside have shown them what to do.

We might define a good citizen as one who takes an active and intentional role in the shaping of a good society, both at an individual and communal level.

To get the attention of policy makers, social entrepreneurs have to learn how to compete head to head with well-financed lobbyists and any number of special interest groups.

Social entrepreneurship is inductive and outward-looking: it moves from observation and experimentation to institution-alization and independent adoption.

To get them to break with the past, it's not enough to condemn them or boycott their companies. We must show them how to build the future. We must advise or compete with them.

As a long-term change strategy, however, the greatest power of activism may not be its ability to compel action but its capacity to elicit empathy by making injustice and suffering palpable.

The primary feedback mechanisms for policy makers-press reports and elections-punish failure and demand results in unrealistically short time frames.

Activists bring political or consumer pressure to bear by showing their numbers and their intensity, and thereby forcing elected officials, business executives, or other leaders to heed their demands and attend to their grievances.

One fundamental difference between today' s social entre-preneurs and yesterday's activists is that, historically, activists have proceeded largely as outsiders to power-like uninvited guests storming the gates of the mansion. By contrast, social entrepreneurs frequently combine outside- and inside-oriented tactics to bring change.

Activism can be thought of as a subset of social entrepreneur-ship

Governments can be innovative, of course, especially when institutional entrepreneurs, or intrapreneurs, are given leeway to innovate.

Just as nobody can predict where the next eBay, Coogle, or Twitter will come from, nobody can predict where the best solutions to tough social problems will emerge.

it flows from the bottom up. Typically it grows out of one person's direct interaction with a problem and a simple question: "Hey, what if we tried X?" What follows is an experiment, a response, some adjust-ment, and more experimentation. Over time, the entrepreneur accumulates experience. He or she works to attract resources and usually has to persuade people to abandon conventional careers in order to join a small team of people committed to an unproven idea. At the outset, the process requires unusual levels of commitment. It also requires humility and faith,

change by influencing the decision making of large institu-tions or by changing public attitudes, while social entrepre-neurs pursue a wider range of options, including building institutions that directly implement solutions themselves.

twelve social entrepreneurs supported by Echoing Green who all experi-enced a "moment of obligation" that caused them to change course and pursue work of deep personal significance.

Society needs to encourage and harness decentralized social experimentation on a larger scale and far more systematically than it currently does.

What is innovative in one generation may be conventional or even retrograde in the next. Microfinance began as an example of social entrepreneurship, but now these services are being extended by formal financial institutions primarily interested in profitability.

We often reduce social entrepreneurship to stories of char-ismatic people. As we have mentioned, social entrepreneur-ship describes a process, a way to organize problem-solving efforts.

Social entrepreneurs don't control major resources, and, unlike governments, they can't command compliance. They have to leverage resources that others control and influence people by articulating goals that are meaningful.

Social entrepreneurs are most effective when they demonstrate ideas that inspire others to go out and create their own social change. The beauty of demonstrating positive pathways is that it is possible to redi-rect human energy without telling people what to do.

Some researchers argue that there is little use in making distinctions and that all entrepreneurs should be considered social entrepreneurs because they generate employment and meet needs.

Today the attention meter is angling in the direction of social entrepreneurship as more people are asking themselves the question at its heart: What kind of enterprise is worth devoting your life to build?

In our view, however, banks prac-tice social entrepreneurship only when they seek to maximize social impact rather than profitability.

Without minimizing their contributions to the solution, it's useful to distinguish conventional firms from those that are pioneering new products, attempting to change industries, or building markets in particularly difficult contexts.

Both types of entrepreneurship require vision, initiative, organization building and "marketing." In terms of skill and temperament, social and business entrepreneurs are strikingly similar. But their primary objectives are different.

one quality not to be overlooked is the capacity to derive joy and celebrate small successes, even while the path ahead remains difficult. Social entrepreneurship is a long-term commitment, with many setbacks and disappointments. Those who stick it out and manage to recruit others always find ways to enjoy the journey.

The main difference has to do with purpose, or what the enterprise is trying to maximize. For social entrepreneurs, the bottom line is to maximize some form of social impact, usually by addressing an urgent need that is being mishandled, over-looked, or ignored by other institutions. For business entre-preneurs, the bottom line may be to maximize profits or shareholder wealth, or to build an ongoing, respected entity that provides value to customers and meaningful work to employees.

The most common misconception about entrepreneurs is that they like to take risks. While researching his landmark book The Achieving Society, David McClelland found that entrepreneurs are attracted to challenges when the key deter-minant of success is skill, not chance. Entrepreneurs aren't gamblers, he wrote. In fact, they will go to extreme lengths to minimize or eliminate risks, painstakingly seeking informa-tion to increase the odds of success. They usually overesti-mate their chances of success, however, which is why others perceive them as risk takers.

We wouldn't call someone a social entrepreneur who introduced snacks like potato chips or Twinkies to the Chinese market, even if his or her firm generated a million jobs.

one should not be deemed superior to the other, although social entrepreneurship is often more challenging because it tackles problems that have defied governmental approaches and for which market solutions have not yet been demonstrated.

Many social entrepreneurs believe that they are fulfilling their life's purpose. For some, this conviction stems from a conscious faith. For others, it grows intuitively and slowly as they pursue different kinds of work until alighting on a voca-tion that expresses their values and talents.

To succeed, social entrepreneurs have to remain steadfast in the face of choruses of doubters and critics.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Psychologists note that entrepreneurs score high on the quality "inner locus of control." They locate power within, rather than outside, themselves.

Entrepreneurs intentionally cultivate relation-ships with people across political camps and from a variety of backgrounds so they can better understand how to navigate change.

they sometimes have difficulty working closely with people who want to lead more balanced lives.

Social entrepreneurs frequently speak of an adult they were close to in childhood, usually a parent or other relative, who was highly ethical and had a profound influence on their thinking. They often refer to these relatives when explaining their inability to bypass the suffering of others.

Although some people are born with more entrepreneurial inclination than others, the management expert Peter Drucker has argued that most people can learn to behave like entrepreneurs.

For people who are often exposed to extreme suffering, social entrepreneurs are surprisingly nonideological.