What is missing in the sector? Is there a pattern of reasons that provides the best explanation for the virulence and intensity of competition in a sector that espouses high moral values?  Should this kind of competition be occurring in a context where organisations and programs are mission/values -driven. There are several ways of ‘explaining’ competition and its consequences.

Cooperate, cooperate, and cooperate

Competition was not a Key Issue we used in the original ‘design’ of the study. We did ask a question about collaboration and cooperation across sectors and were consistently met with laments about the dysfunctions and challenges of competition in the sector.

So competition may be a result of the inability of sector members to cooperate or collaborate with each other. If they cannot cooperate, have they forgotten a basic principle of mutuality in the sector? We heard from few respondents that there was some cooperation but the examples cited always seemed to be about good but superficial relationships. More often examples of cooperations were also about everything that had nothing to do with funding and resources. Once funding was mooted members seemed to go into vested self-interest mode.

Given the interweaving nature of relationships among all issues identified in the sector (and all relating to leadership and management), it would seem facile to explain the unwanted consequences of competition as a lack of collaboration or a jaundiced view of cooperation in the sector.
Yet the lack of cooperation also raises the question of just how transparent members of the social economy are in their dealings with each other. Given that the individuals and organisations are working for the benefit of society, one might expect transparency (and its associated values of trust, mutuality and participatory democracy) in the sector. Building transparency rather than engaging in competitive behaviours would seem to lead social economy members to improved impact of organisations or programs. If the social economy were productively and cooperatively engaged with itself would this lead to less wastage of resources and consequent increased impact? And does working at a superficial and largely unproductive level reduce interaction of members within the sector?

Finally, as one participant in a Thought Leadership Forum commented, the etymology of the word collaboration indicates that the original meaning of the idea was ‘collaboration with the enemy’ - and this seems to be borne out in members comments when issues of funding and resources are raised!

Reactive culture

We have already observed a culture of reaction and/or acceptance (which we also decribed as a form of ‘powerlessness) in the Social Economy. As a consequence, members tend to take a conservative role and stance on the major issues, challenges, and conditions which influence and/or are imposed on their work. Hence, a number of respondents descried the imposition of Government’s anti-democratic embargo on contact with the media as a condition of funding for specific delivery service projects.

The issue of Business Skills Development witnessed one participant claiming that:
Organizations in the Social Economy need to move from being reactive to business issues, to being more pro-active. This will require a substantial up-skilling of employees or the recruitment of proper business managers .  

Further examples can be found in responses to the issue Collaboration and Cooperation and why it was not practised for greater efficiency in the sector. The following kinds of responses reflect reactivity.

Staff in non profits work in conditions and on a salary that would not be tolerated in the corporate world .

Collaboration (with corporates) was a high risk activity and [with] possible negative outcomes  -  an organisation’s loss of DGR [tax exempt] status was cited as am example.

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

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 Forprofits 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 regard competitive funding and other issues as symptoms not causes.

 Symptom or cause

Another possible ‘explanation’ may be in attributing the observed consequences of competition not as cause but as symptom.  This is the explanation offered in one Thought Leadership Forum in relation to funding issues. Underlying this plausible idea is the assertion that competent leaders in the social economy can solve most difficulties through innovative strategies (such as long-term strategic alliances with for-profit corporates). But this somehow fails to satisfy if only because symptoms themselves can be ‘causes’ in a causal chain of events.

We might also suggest that the basis of competition is yet another aspect of misalignment of self-interest or vested interests; or it may be the consequences of the language problem both described in previous chapters. But both of these could be interpreted as “noise” in which the sector operates and competes.