it's getting harder for me to be patient with (some of) you

I've always tried to manage my business in ways that reflect my values - and as some may know, this includes a practice of 'grace'. This is manifest through my automatically offering to reschedule a call/meeting/session with a client or collaborator if it transpires that they fail to 'turn up', without additional charge* (even though it represents lost time and earnings for me - I'm not salaried, which means I have to make every hour I spend count, in helping to generate enough income to pay the rent, etc).

This grace is based on my idea that we're all human beings - sometimes, we simply 'forget', or the universe has other plans for us at that time, despite our best intentions to the contrary (a child is sick, we're suddenly faced with an employee in crisis, etc). And I know that if it were me in such a position, I'd hope that there'd be some similar understanding and compassion - so I try and act in this way in turn**.

Over the last few years, I've started to track just how much my practice of grace represents/costs me, as part of my annual impact reports.

Since I started to record it 5 years ago, its averaged nearly £7,000 a year! And although it seemed to 'peak' in 2021/2 (which I attributed to the 'fall out' from the pandemic), and has been steadily slowly dropping each year since then (last years' figure was £6,675) - my experiences at the start of this year are not encouraging... 

In the first month of this new financial year alone, I've already 'lost' nearly £900 - which may not sound like much to some, but if this is a pattern which continues for the rest of the year (and I've generally seen a need to exercise my grace consistently over the year, since I started to record it), then you can hopefully see how it will quickly accumulate to exceed what the average has been for the last 5 years. 

I know I'm not the only freelancer / self-employed who this happens to - but bear in mind that I'm also a registered unpaid carer, which, according to research published by JRF last year, means I'm already foregoing at least £10,000 each year in earnings because of this circumstance.

So hopefully you can understand and appreciate how, if I seem a little cool with you in reconvening after you've needed to rebook time with me, it's not because I don't like you - it's because I find the behaviours and/or circumstances that have led to it not only showing a potential lack of respect for my time (and therefore me), but are also causing me tangible pain.

And yes, I could introduce a policy of 'pay or play' (i.e. - if you don't turn up, I still charge you), but that would feel like it would be cutting against my values of trying to encourage others by recognising that sometimes despite our best efforts, we simply can't honour an arrangement...  But it is something that I'm looking to have to start to factor into working agreements where this happens in the course of my working with a client from now on.

*for clarification, 'without notice' includes messaging me less than 24 hours before the arranged time - as this means I'm similarly unable to find other meaningful client work or activity: representing lost earnings for me.

**if you're wondering - yes, I also track the extent to which I may have also 'forgotten' or not been able to offer the other person more than 24 hours notice myself.

something strange is happening to my blog

15 years ago, this blog emerged into the world.

And it wasn't because I wanted to start to share and broadcast all the various and ongoing stories, ideas, and researches I have and do with you all - but because Jason Elliot, who I knew at the time, thought I had a lot of important things that needed to be said and heard, and unbeknownst to me, he created it, forcing me to start a habit that's seen me post a new provocation or reflection roughly every 2 weeks since then.

Over that time, I've thought a lot about what the purpose and value of this blog is/should be, and noticed that the analytics have always remained pretty constant (and relatively 'modest' at 500-1000 views a month).

But in June of last year, that's suddenly changed.

I'm now starting to see up to 30,000 views a month! 

And despite what I hear from a lot of the 'gurus' out there about how you should do your social media, my approach to my blog hasn't changed over the last 15 years - I'm still posting about once every 2 weeks, and on the same sorts of themes I always have (see my labels list for a flavour).

Perhaps this is a sign that the age-old adage of the value and importance of persistence, perseverance, and patience are actually at play here - if you want to achieve success (however you might define it) you have to keep putting the effort in consistently over time. There are no easy quick win solutions, and perhaps what's happening with how my blog is now 'performing' is a sign of this?

CIC 2.0?

Nearly 20 years ago, the Community Interest Company (CIC) form was introduced to high acclaim and interest for the social economy sector.

Since then, it seems to have struggled to fulfil its potential, based on various datasets which has shown it to: 

• not actually offer any of the unique features it promises; 
• be more reliant on being able to access grants than charities are (despite the fact that nearly all find it highly challenging to be able to apply for/be awarded such funding in the amounts they're seeking); 
• be no more sustainable than private companies;
• and be the most secretive (and therefore least trustworthy) of all the legal form options (with an additional previous post about this here).

And my poking around different data sets in these ways as shared in my blog here, has led me to be invited to write features for both Pioneers Post, and Stir to Action in recent years.

But I've spotted something recently about CICs in the data about them that makes me wonder if we're about to see a change in how this part of the social economy acts.

One of the data sets I regularly look up are those published by the CIC Regulator (along with those published by the regulators of the other legal forms: Companies House, the Charity Commission, and the FCA). And recently, the CIC Regulator has started reporting on how many of the new CICs that are appearing each year aren't 'new', but are actually existing limited companies who have decided to convert to a CIC.

Over the last 2 years, 50% (yes, half!) of all CICs added to the register have come through this route of an existing private company converting to a CIC.

Frustratingly, it's not clear what the motivations are behind these companies wanting to make the shift to gain a legal status that doesn't offer them anything that they couldn't already have otherwise incorporated within their legal form more easily, and which isn't automatically helping them access any new grant funding opportunities.

But these new data points suggest something seismic may be starting to take place amongst the CIC community - without this rise in interest from already established private companies, the growth in CICs would be in single % figures each year (lower than private companies), rather than the current roughly 20% growth. This means that CICs as a whole are likely to be starting to be increasingly influenced by the practices and thinking of previously private companies - rather than the historic basis of wider local communities applying for this form. 

What this means for how CICs will start to be viewed by the wider sector and others remains to be seen, but with a growing number of CICs being registered that don't have their origin story in how this part of the social enterprise sector has worked for the last 20 years, must surely mean that if this trend continues, we may be seeing the start of CIC 2.0?

an A-Z of facilitators (sort of)

A while ago, I was encouraged to create an alternative (social) entrepreneurs A-Z - and it seems to have been generally well received and appreciated by most people who've read it.

It came out of my work supporting entrepreneurs of all types over the years, and I've recently wondered if I should do the same with other parts of my 'professional' working life...

Some may know that amongst the things I 'do', is facilitate: getting a bunch of people to create, agree, or resolve something together - although it's actually usually more interesting and exciting than that sounds. 

And that's the rub with being a facilitator - most fellow facilitators I know all agree that until you know what facilitation can do, and how it can benefit your team and organisation, it's hard to be able to convey the full magic of it (a bit like the first Matrix movie back in 1999: you couldn't be told what the Matrix was back then, you had to experience it for yourself, and then you'd understand it completely...)

So I've had a go at an A-Z of what it means to be a facilitator, and what you can expect of us. But as this is also about helping to explain what one is, I've tried to approach it as an acronym:

F - friendly: open and non-judgemental, on your side

A - accessible: finding ways to make things best work for you

C - childish: after all, who doesn't want to play out and have fun whenever we can?

I - idealistic: trying to keep focus on the bigger picture 

L - Lego: there are lots of different styles, tools, and approaches to how facilitation can be 'done' (including playing with these magic bricks!) 

I - insightful: helping probe and prod ideas and assumptions to best make sure they're 'right' 

T - talkative: helping keep conversations and discussions flowing

A - accountable: if we can't make it work, then that's on us for not doing our job properly 

T - tree-top views: in not being part of your team, we can bring a new perspective to help you make sure that you're seeing the 'wood for the trees'

O - open: you know your organisation and people better than we do, so we want to hear your ideas about how to make things work

R - robust: people throw a lot at us, and we can take it. Tough conversations, sensitivities, and taboos. We'll hold your confidences, but also won't take it personally or expect you to hold back if things start to bubble up

But as with all definitions, the above may be missing or mis-leading in places - so by putting this out there, I'm hoping other facilitators will be promoted to counter-suggest better words for each of the letters, and people who haven't experienced the magic that a good facilitator can bring (other than copious amounts of post-it notes, fancy pens, and sheets of flip chart paper) can start to glimpse what you might be missing out on...

Qualified, Certificated, and Accredited imposters

Feelings of imposterism are commonly associated with feelings and thoughts that “we’re simply not good enough” – and there are lots of ways through which people generally try and manage these.

But most of these advocated approaches tend not to involve people engaging with formal study or learning, in pursuit of ultimately gaining a recognised qualification of some type, with which they might then beat their inner imposter over the head with.

 

I’ve also noticed that although feelings of imposterism can surface in any of us, in any role, and at any time in our lives, it seems to be more concentrated were people have roles with higher levels of responsibility – yet part of the gaining such roles is, in part, based on evidenced learning on the part of the candidate, in the form of increasingly higher levels of certificates and accreditations (which are supposed to be proof of our abilities to undertake such roles and tasks).

And this is odd because feelings of self-doubt can often be rooted in our feeling we lack sufficient knowledge or experience in a subject field – something which qualifications are surely designed to offer us? So what’s going wrong in our current structured learning pathways not automatically resolving the tension in how we believe in ourselves after being awarded our shiny new certificates?

 

I wonder if it may be to do with the fact that courses which offer us a route to gaining a recognised qualification aren’t often that connected to how well we feel we can subsequently do our jobs?

The process of accreditation is usually based on a learner being able to evidence that they’ve gained knowledge and been able to apply that knowledge in a given situation. And the criteria by which they are assessed in doing so are linked to overarching national standards.

But having created accredited programmes (and been through a fair few) myself, there’s something that I realise has been missing in all of them: there’s no standards or frameworks about how we as learners are reflecting on, or building, our confidence in the subject matter. There are no prompts for how we emotionally feel about the knowledge and how we might be subsequently using and applying it. And without those tools to help us relate to our learning through our feelings, as well as our intellect, qualifications don’t help us in any meaningful way
in challenging feelings of inner doubt.

And perhaps this is why most of the guidance out there about how we can try to approach managing feelings of self-doubt don’t often seem to promote a person committing to a programme of formal certificated learning as a way to bolster their self-esteem and belief?

So – in summary: just because a person is qualified, doesn’t mean that they’re automatically going to be any more confident in their role; and if you’re supporting someone through a course of learning, try and help them to explicitly consider how their confidence and self-belief in themselves is being bolstered and enhanced through the new knowledge they’re getting. It may help us all to beat those inner imposters collectively better over the head…

why some people don't want to banish their imposter syndrome

Some people will be aware that I wrote a book about imposter syndrome, which turns out to be a bit like marmite: some love it, whilst others have uninvited me from speaking at events because of it.

The central idea in my book is that, after looking at lots of research papers and studies, and evidences from various places and sources, I don't think imposter syndrome is what most people say and think it is. 

(SPOILER - it's actually part of what it means to be a human being, helps keep us safe, and can act as a superpower in our work and lives).

But something that struck me as I waded through all the published research materials about it was a recurring thought: 'if all the evidence and research keeps showing this thing isn't what people say it is, then why does it seem that so people say they feel they have it, and it's negatively affecting their lives?'

Perhaps part of the answer could be that imposter syndrome is an illusionary truth - something that, because we've heard lots of people talk about it in the same way, we accept as being true without questioning it. Just like the 10,000 hours rule, breakfast being the most important meal of the day, etc. 

But I also wonder if it may also be to do with it being a 'label' which, in being external to a person, makes it easier to validate a lack of motivation or desire to progress on their part? (And so we fall victim to a self-fulfilling prophecy - best articulated in the armed forces through their adage of 'if a soldier thinks they'll die in battle tomorrow, they'll probably find a way to make it happen'.)

Suffering with 'something' can make it easier to justify not pushing ourselves to grow - but in doing so, we create a fake 'safe space' for ourselves, which only serves to limit our potential, and the lives we might otherwise be living.

As Baz Luhrmann once observed - "a life lived in fear, is a life half lived."

time to ditch the fetish of becoming a 'financially sustainable' business

In a social/networking session with fellow freelancers I was part of recently, a recurring theme amongst my fellow self employed, who are in their first few years of trading, kept coming up - namely a desire to become 'sustainable' (aka creating a pipeline of assured regular work).

Let's quickly clarify something about this - this isn't unique to freelancers.

While most businesses make it through their first year, most won't make it past 3. https://www.statista.com/statistics/285305/new-enterprise-survival-rate-in-the-uk/ 

This 3-year threshold is possibly why, if your business makes it past 3 years, it's officially recognised as being financially sustainable: 

https://www.freshbooks.com/hub/startup/how-long-does-it-take-business-to-be-successful#:~:text=list%20really%20expanding.-,Year%20Three,three%20years%20in%20the%20distance.  

However, within 2 years of reaching this magic milestone, 20% of these 'sustainable' businesses will then have had to close their doors for good... Just because you've made it to 3, doesn't automatically mean you're set for life.

So - if all businesses equally struggle to keep going (regardless of it they're large or micro), why do we keep chasing the dream of reaching a promised land of 'being financially sustainable'? The data referenced above shows this will never happen - but that's surely to be expected when you remember that markets, people, and fashions, etc keep changing all the time around us (so what we once thought everyone would want to buy, is now an anathema... disposable plastic cutlery, anyone?).

Surely it would be better to ditch the expectation of reaching a goal that's always going to be unachievable, and instead reframe our language and ambitions to something more realistic and honest: maybe something to do with cash reserves, and how long we can run for if we suddenly run out of paying customers (which would reduce the threat of facing imminent eviction from our homes, and therefore go a long way to helping our peace of mind and achieving a healthier state of mental well-being...).