Introduction

Literature Review

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion and Recommendation

References

Abstract

Social entrepreneurship is a well-integrated social movement which is composed of business and non-profit sectors. In Thai society, social entrepreneurs still lack competencies to certify practices. Therefore, this research aimed to: 1) explain motivation and social entrepreneur attributes and 2) assess the social entrepreneur competencies of activists with regard to children and youths in Nan province, Thailand. Thirty-two social activists who actively worked on children and youth issues in Nan province were purposely selected from 35 social organizations active with children and youths. Data were collected using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. An indepth interview using semi-structured questioning was conducted to explain social activists’ motivation. Social entrepreneur attributes and social entrepreneur competencies were assessed using a self-assessment questionnaire. The findings showed that participant’s motivation was derived from: 1) beliefs in human dignity and rights, 2) experiences with a role model, 3) own experiences, and 4) gratitude to the nation. Regarding emotional intelligence and social skills, 59.4 percent of participants perceived having a high performance level in understanding emotional conditions when interacting with others and 84.4 percent perceived their ability to adapt and coordinate with others at a high level. On virtues and ethical issues, 96.9 percent viewed these two as significant and necessary for social entrepreneurs. Regarding social entrepreneur competencies, the average score for overall competency was at the master level (X¼۲٫۷۶, SD ¼ ۰٫۵۴). The competency with the highest average score was learning (X¼۳٫۰۱, SD ¼ ۰٫۶۲) followed by teamwork (X ¼۳٫۰۰, SD ¼ ۰٫۶۱). The competency with the lowest average score was fund raising at the apply level (X¼۲٫۳۴, SD ¼ ۰٫۷۳). Thus, a competency development model should be appropriately designed to increase social activist ability. Competency assessment should also be used to assess social activists in order to promote them to be effective social entrepreneurs.

Introduction

Social entrepreneurship mainstreaming has been identified in the global society under the contextual conditions of social and environmental needs. Additionally, development support replacement has been driven by the seeds of good and earnest practitioners. Social enterprise, therefore, is a well-integrated social movement composed of business and non-profit sectors. As a social movement, it aims to solve community problems and provide new values for social sustainability (Nicholls, 2006). The original concepts of social entrepreneurship were in the form of individuals/ organizations working on social issues. Presently, there is a conceptual process that stimulates business entrepreneurs who have targets for profits to realize, be aware of, and to pay more attention to society. They operate their business in such a form that society or the business sector drive social consciousness. Thus, the social enterprise mainstream is the best combination of humans, organization, and process. Social entrepreneurs are activists who possess creative thoughts, visions, and a working network. These activists drive the social movement under organizations in the form of foundations, associations, non-government organizations (NGOs) or they may be under the control of the government sector. These organizations have goals and missions for societal aspects through methods of operation that mostly adopt traditional approaches which make their social movements encounter both success and failure because they lack business and managerial skills in particular (McBreaty, 2007). Social activists are asked for cost-effectiveness with regard to resource consumption (Phlainoi, 2008). Furthermore, these non-profit organizations are now encountering difficult circumstances as they attempt to prolong and sustain themselves while government sectors and other funding sources have imposed stricter funding considerations. These funding sources have also focused more on investment than welfare assistance (Ever & Laville, 2004).