There is a culture of reaction and/or acceptance in the SE leading to members taking a reactive role and stance to the issues, challenges, and conditions which influence and/or impose on their work

There were several forms of evidence that indicated a more reactive stance from the ‘sector’.

There was little evidence in the study of SE members contesting the conditions of their work. There was much evidence of resistance but little positive comment reflecting lateral thought. There was rare comment about the sector as the guardian and innovator in the construction for a more civic society (interestingly enough this was mentioned by a number of government and FP members!).

When asked about the Key Issue Collaboration and Cooperation and why it was not practised for greater efficiency in the sector the following kinds of responses appealed to funding, resources, and competition issues in what could be regarded collectively as a reactive positioning of the sector.

• Collaboration (with corporates) was a high risk activity and [with] possible negative outcomes . The example of an organisation losing its DGR [tax exempt] status was cited.
• Self-interest where organisations were territorial and protected their patch  and their "slice of the pie" [which was] to the detriment of the overall social economy
• A combination of reasons involving lack of sufficient resources for good levels of cooperation and limited success at collaboration; being too busy trying to survive to plan cooperatively; and individual rather than organisation dependent for its development
• Staff in non profits work in conditions and on a salary that would not be tolerated in the corporate world .
• Hard work, dedication and commitment, and solid values .
• The fact that too often organisations are very defensive or ideologically driven in a way that inhibits collaboration .
• The view that in private industry, cooperation is actively discouraged e.g. price fixing. Expectations of cooperation possibilities are unrealistic (a view that reflects more of a misunderstanding of FPs perhaps) .
• Competitive culture and frameworks that are make for less collaboration and a more conducive culture and environment  
• Too frequently, collaboration is seen as an optional extra rather than an intrinsic aspect of meeting the needs of vulnerable and disadvantaged populations .

This more reactive role and stance contrasts with the views of a relatively few leaders in the sector who regarded competitive funding and other issues as symptoms not causes.

Again it may be argued that SE members’ views of competition are based on an acceptance of current policy-ideology of the notion of market as interpreted by Governments who provide funding. There is a certain reaction, dependency, and acceptance of a ‘free-market’ situation rather than a recognition and contestation of the politics of funding. The same situation occurs when SE members’ responses to Governments’ regulations reached an almost impassioned reactive negativity when issues of funding were raised. No mention was made that SE members influenced the formulation of government social policy (although it could be recognised that covert influence existed), and no comment indicated that members should be involved in policy formation that significantly affected their work operations and impact.

The responses to “innovative business models” were more a narrative about explanations of why innovation was so difficult in the sector.

Funding was viewed as maintenance (interpreted by many as sustainability) of service delivery. Investment was seen as expansion, scaling and more long-term; and a means for funding infrastructure (material and human) in contexts where funders only fund ‘core cost’ rather than ‘overhead and admin costs’. There were few expansive impulses in the views of participants; as least views that adopted an entirely non-reactive approach witnessed in TLF1.

The image of the sector tended to be perceived through spin marketing (the conduct of fund-raising events such as balls, walkathons, festive events etc) rather than for its achievements (the lack of measurement of which was acknowledged but practised rarely if only because of lack of knowledge and available measurement ‘tools’. Another form of perception came from business and the media lamenting the tax advantages and lack of accountability in the sector. Pitted against this was the general lack of contestation by the sector. There appear to be no proactive measures to address these critical forays from business, government and the media.

Questions
1.    How are the reactive roles of SE members witnessed in the daily operations of organisations in the sector?
2.    What are the consequences of a lack of contestation and opposition to externally formulated policy and conditions of support for the sector?
3.    How might the reactive role played by SE members be changed? Or should it?
4.    How might SE members work more actively to influence policy guidelines of funders?

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)