Wowed by Structure Lab

by

Find My HeartStructure Lab – the place to learn what structure to ask your legal advisor for. It can also be useful for foundations, investors, and others working with social benefit start-ups.

I feel wowed. I have been reading about structures for social benefit start-ups and considering my own for years now. I felt like I had a pretty good idea. Now I feel like I have a clear map. I even know what signs to look for.

Creative Commons License photo credit: PharCyder
A hearty thank you to Joy Anderson, whose breadth of experience and warm comfortable facilitation style made the day fly by delightfully. I appreciate clarity. Now, I see more clearly the people collaborating with me and the roles they play. I understand better the vehicles for getting funding (and the structures those work with). And I grasp better what the asset types of the organization are and who I want to own and control them. I also gained clarity about some of my fears! Let me share with you some of my key learnings:
  • No one owns a nonprofit. You can’t do investment vehicles with equity. And you can’t close them easily.
  • Certain core factors drive decisions at different layers of your structure from the legal form to the governance structure. And governance structures can help manage mission/vision holding.
  • Understanding what makes the IRS nervous helps uncover which structure will work for your organization.
  • Foundations and investors avoid making their heads hurt. Your strategy for structure can help reduce their confusion and headaches.utzon died today at ninety
  • The last two are about understanding where those relationships fit on several values matrices. Knowing where you are in relationship to them, helps you communicate. Understand where you are on those matrices helps more smoothly facilitate many of your relationships.
  • The difference between PRIs and MRIs.

Key questions and explanations allow participants to create solutions that fit their situation.

  • Some structures are easy to start or end, and others are hard (read, take time or capital). Consider where you will encounter resistance and what benefit that will bring you. Choose the resistance in a legal sense and resistance in the market that is right for you and your endeavor.
  • It is hard enough to describe a new enterprise. Consider that when choosing a form – what structures do people understand.
  • Clarity about the roles different relationships play and the degree of formality of your agreements support each.
  • The management of your assets and your access to capital dance with the structure of your organization. There is a complex choice set that doesn’t neatly fit a decision tree.
  • Consider the exit plan. It has implications in the structure. Do you plan to sell the org? What if you get hit by a bus?
  • Don’t be seduced by scale nor lured in by the idea of wild profits. What is the right approach for the appropriate growth of your organization. Yes, it has implications for certain structures.
  • Mediate the concerns of one level of structure (for example LLCs at the legal form level) with tools of another level (for example, governance and agreements).
  • When creating hybrids, there are benefits and drawbacks to the 3 simple forms (and
    one complex form). The workshop explains what each one is useful for.

look downstairs into stairwell whirl

Creative Commons License photo credit: quapan

There is more, but this hopefully gives you a sense of the information provided. The approach of the workshop is playful, and the process allows for each person to understand their specific needs and values.

We also delved into L3Cs. They were legalized in January for Illinois. We discussed what makes them useful as well as what the alternatives are.

I wanted to come away with a clear decision on how to structure thrivable.org. I have that decision. I also know now how that can change over time, and what my plan can be for the organization(s) over time. Best of all, I feel equipped to manage the unexpected, in terms of structure. So I feel resilient and flexible structurally.

Way to go Criterion Ventures!

Transformative Structures

by

I read the latest issue of Beyond Profit magazine on my flight to the west coast. I was headed to Beyond Social Media conference. What I most enjoyed reading was about going beyond existing structures. For years now, as part of several startups with varying degrees of social good intent, I have pondered over appropriate legal structures. It was so exciting when BCorp certification came out. Finally something to say that an organization was for-benefit with rigorous criteria. However, BCorps were, at that time, just a certification. We still had to operate in the space of either for-profit business (but working on double or triple bottom line outcomes), or as a nonprofit. The very name nonprofit annoys me. It is so far from being aspirational in purpose. It is framed by the profit issue and not by what drives a nonprofit — the mission to serve.

The first article I devoured discussed advances in hybrid organizations, Blended Value: Weaving Profit into Social Mission through Hybrid Models. Which states,

In the nomenclature created by Pamela Hartigan and John Elkington in their book, The Power of Unreasonable People, there are three categories of social enterprise: leveraged nonprofits, hybrid nonprofits, and social business ventures. As these categories indicate, where there is no single legal form that meets the need of an entrepreneur, they create their own: engaging in profit-making activities within a nonprofit, yoking a nonprofit with a for-profit, or creating a profic-making subsidiary within a non-profit.

Several states in the US have adopted new L3C legislation. L3C’s are low-profit, limited-liability companies designed to help foundations comply with program-related investment rules (as foundations push to use more than 10% of their endowments toward mission/program related opportunities). As a long-time advocate for mission-related investing, I was really excited to see L3Cs enter the market. However, they have not been tested with the IRS enough to build deep confidence in their worth and security.

And to be frank, this is really about confidence, trust, security. And while the B-corp certification acts as a “trust-mark” according to the article in Beyond Profit, it is not legally binding the way legal structures are. These legal models are all about trust! Founders want to be sure that the organization survives with the original intent (to make a profit or to serve the public). Combining the two is transforming the legal system and the structures we use to create organizations. Beneficiaries of a service also want to trust an organization to do what it is structured to do.

Lakra, citing the preconceived notions people have about certain structures, said. “You wouldn’t use a non-profit courier company, nor would you trust a for-profit company to provide HIV education to the deaf.”

We know we can trust that a for-profit company, no matter what gloss and cover elides it, will be driven by the need for revenue. They will be generous, helpful, and good citizens to the degree that serves their “rational actor” in the market approach. And a well-meaning entrepreneur can end up selling a for-profit business and seeing the core values get wrecked in the pursuit of revenue. Creating a structure that ties the organizational activity to a social mission is tricky. There are paths through it. And legal forms are actually more complex then just “for-profit” and “non-profit” lead us to think. There are member-owned organizations and cooperatives of different flavors. To create a legal structure that the founder and the public can trust to be consistent requires some expert advice.

I am off to get mine. March 3rd, I am going to Structure Lab, a workshop held by Criterion Ventures at innovative cities around the United States. I am told the workshop involves a game (and I love games!) as well as focused help on my particular concerns, so I can walk away much more clear about what organizational structure meets my needs.

I have some serious transformation in mind. I need a transformative structure to match, please.

Body Image

by

I was conversing with a good friend last night, and the subject turned to looks. I said something then that I want to share with you now.

People in general are so self-conscious about their appearance. There are millions, if not billions, of dollars spent on appearance. And yet, over and over people get together and fall in love. Not because people are perfect. But because when one person loves another, they admire that person for who they are (we hope). The lover embraces the other. Finds beauty in the shape of a belly button, the curve of a collar bone, the bend of a knee, a dimple in a cheek. The lover, admiring the partner, gets this sort of feedback in way too many cases, “but my x is y.” My thighs are too fat, my nose too long, my eyes too small, my arms too thick or too thin, and on and on. This is most often the case with women, but men do it too.

What in the world is going on? The lover admires, and in response the beloved says, “don’t admire me, I am not what I wish I was.” Rather than letting the lover admire, we put on costumes that conceal. As women, we put on makeup to conceal, to make theater of our appearance. Costumes are great. We need them. They indicate expectations we can have about behavior Costumes are fun to play with. (Wear the wrong costume, and enjoy the way others are disturbed in their expectations.)

The woman says, “I don’t want you to see me without my makeup on.” Oh really? The lover can’t peak behind the curtain and get a backstage view of the star?

When we complain about our looks, what we are really saying is, “the lover should not love me as I am.” or “I don’t love myself as I am.”

I really love burlesque. There is something so exquisite about a person, of whatever shape and size, totally flaunting their sexuality as it is, with no excuses. I want that for you. Maybe not the public spectacle part, but the flaunting what you got for your beloved. Focus on your assets and play to them.

Ask yourself:

  • for whom do I want to be different than I am?
  • Why?
  • What does that get for me?
  • What does that get for them?
  • What need does that meet in me?

Note: Who am I to give you this? Let me reveal a bit about me. Very few people notice this about me, but I have a congenital bone deformity. That means, from the time I was born, the bones in my arm have been crooked. I have scars showing the work done to improve it but not fully “correct” it. I would never say, “my arms are too flabby” when there is something much more noticeable –  that I can’t do anything about – which makes me “flawed” in the model perfect sense. And then let me tell you this even more revealing bit of information. Never once. Not ever. Not even in the slightest. Over the last 25 years of relationships has anyone ever even hinted that they like all of me, except that. I have had guys want to adjust my bike handles for me, so they work better. I have had guys ask what surgery would make it more functional. But never once did anyone ever say, in any permutation of it, “this is so unattractive” or “I don’t love that part of you.” And if that is something a lover accepts – the right ones – the ones that love me….the ones that love you as you are… then I think they will also accept your thighs, your nose, your eyes, and all the rest of you too. Don’t insult their love and ardor by demeaning the glorious object of their desire. Love your body, as it is, as the lover beholds it, with eyes filled with admiration.

It is one wild and precious life you have, and this is the body you have for it. It is a miracle. Millions of years of life begetting life led to you and your body. What a marvel! As it is.

Closing Triangles

by

I think of myself as nurturing networks and communities as well as individuals and organizations. And one strategy I use is network weaving. Network Weaving describes the connection made between two people I know who don’t yet know each other as closing a triangle, because in a network map, this is exactly what it looks like!

credit: NetworkWeaving

credit: NetworkWeaving

Here, in this post, I want to talk specifically about my practice of making introductions. I had been connecting people for a long time before I met Ken Homer, but his introduction format really set the bar for me. When he introduced me to another one of his connections, I felt like I was glowing! Wow, that is how I want people to feel when I connect them.

Sure, I want them to feel good and associate that with me. Less egotistically, I want the time I take to make an introduction to be time well spent for all of us. I want them to feel great about connecting to the person I introduce them too. I want it to be useful all around. This is not about quantity for me, it is about quality. So, here is the pattern I use, developed in part through what Ken demonstrated.

I described it on twitter today.
Picture 3

  1. describing strengths of each
    After stating the purpose of the email (useful for any and all starts to email conversation), describe relevant and positive strengths of each person to each other.
    My wording for this is usually, “Person A, please allow me to introduce you to Person B. Person B is passionate about x, has terrific skills in y, and wants to explore z. ” Followed by the inverse, “Person B, please allow me to introduce you to Person A. Person A is passionate about m, has terrific skills in n, and wants to explore o.” This is a rough format, each one is different, but they all fit within that general pattern. Also, the adjectives are always chosen to fit the people I am describing. Use your own.
  2. point to alignment & mutual benefit
    I like to point to something that makes the people I am connecting clear about what they have in common. I don’t mean that they both read books. I mean that they are both within a particular field or sub-domain, know people in common, or have a similar passion about making the world a better place (and do so coming from a similar mindset).
    I also like to point out what I imagine might be the mutually beneficial initial outcome from each party taking the time to make the connection. It might not be what actually happens, but it gives them some sense of why I am making the connection and what each might gain from it.
  3. name small first step
    Sometimes I forget to leave this in. However, after receiving several wonderful network weaving emails from others, I realized how vital this is. I received some letters, saw the alignment, and yet I might not know what to do about it. So in my introduction, I have been adding some suggestion for a first step – “In a 15 minute phone call, I think you could discuss your shared interest in x.”
    That examples covers part of #2 and also #3. It doesn’t have to be long. Often I might have had an extended discussion with one of the parties, so I can point to what I have refined as a conversation starter for them.

I find that this often makes clear too what role I want one to play to the other. Maybe I am asking Person A to mentor Person B on a subject area. Or maybe I want Person B to introduce Person A to someone within their network who can help in a more targeted fashion. Being clear on roles can help people feel the respect I am offering them as well as make choices about what they want to be.

I hope these patterns help you make connections between two people.