A public benefit structure is a start. But structure alone doesn’t hold mission.
(Editor's Note: This post was originally published on May 13, 2025. As I migrate my work to this new platform, I've updated it to better reflect my current frameworks and sharpened my thinking from the original piece. The core ideas remain the same.)
Every purpose-driven founder faces the same brutal question: What happens when your mission-protecting governance structure gets stress-tested by real-world pressure?
OpenAI just gave us a ~$90 billion case study in what can go wrong. In late 2023, a share sale valued the company at that level – proof of the stakes when governance falters under growth.
Discernment Isn't a Delay. It's a Strategic Choice.
(Editor's Note: This post was originally published on May 06, 2025. As I migrate my work to this new platform, I've updated it to better reflect my current frameworks and sharpened my thinking from the original piece. The core ideas remain the same.)
Sarah Wynn-Williams, Facebook’s former director of global public policy, is sworn in before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on April 9, 2025 in Washington. MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / ASSOCIATED PRESS
We've been taught to treat discernment like a delay. More often than not, that pause – to ask if we're solving the right problem, not just shipping the next feature – is seen as a sign of weakness. But what if that pause is actually your most powerful strategic tool?
The old tech mantra was “move fast and break things,” but purpose and value-driven teams know that breaking trust is a cost you can't afford. The alternative isn't to move slow; it's to build smarter.
Too often, participatory research gets framed as a ‘nice-to-have’ – something you can layer on after the “real” work is moving. I’ve fought that tension more times than I can count. The pressure is always to privilege speed, to show momentum. But speed without authenticity isn’t progress, it’s theatre.
That’s why resilient teams reject the false choice between scale and integrity. They design systems where speed and authenticity reinforce each other.
That’s the power of a dual-track roadmap: building and earning trust in parallel.
Using OKRs to translate values into real-world impact
The Challenge
A few years back, I was working with a mid-sized tech firm that wanted to move beyond the “values on a poster” stage. They had words like innovation and inclusivity written down, but those principles weren’t showing up in how people made decisions, set priorities, or allocated resources.
How to avoid partnerships that cost more than they give
Photo: Sarah Vombrack
As your organization grows, the vendors, platforms, and partners you bring on board will shape your culture as much as your operations. Choosing them with intention matters. The wrong fit can quietly lock you into relationships that chip away at your values over time.
Product/Market Fit gave tech its playbook: build, test, iterate, chase adoption. It works…. until adoption alone isn’t enough. When you’re building for trust, legitimacy, or community, the rules change. Real resilience comes not just from use, but from ownership.
Pragmatic idealism means refusing to choose between aspiration and reality. Embedding participation from the start isn’t decoration. It’s how the work holds.
When people talk about “participatory design,” they usually mean surveys, feedback forms, or usability tests. Those are fine, but too often they treat input like data to extract instead of relationships to build.
Real participation runs deeper. It’s about moving from feedback loops to co-creation and eventually, to stewardship. That’s not just the ethical thing to do, it’s the only way to build spaces people actually trust.
When Budgets Are Tight, Purpose Is Your Strategic Asset
(Editor's Note: This post was originally published on March 4, 2025. As I migrate my work to this new platform, I've updated it to better reflect my current frameworks and sharpened my thinking from the original piece. The core ideas remain the same.)
Photo: Michael Hamments
Companies are cutting back. Sustainability budgets are shrinking. Equity and inclusion efforts are being quietly rolled back. Some of it’s economic; some of it’s political.
In Canada, major organizations are gutting their impact funding. Pride Toronto, one of the country’s largest LGBTQ+ events, has lost corporate sponsorships as companies retreat from commitments to equity and inclusion. These shifts are framed as financial decisions, but they signal something bigger.
When teams talk about “community,” it often means whoever showed up: early adopters, vocal users, maybe a few advisors. But if you’re serious about designing for impact, you have to look past the people already in the room.
The ones who matter most are often the ones least likely to participate: the people with no extra time, the ones skeptical of new solutions, the ones who stand to lose the most if you get it wrong.
Why So-Called “Tough Decisions” Are Really Just Corporate Priorities.
(Editor's Note: This post was originally published on February 25, 2025. As I migrate my work to this new platform, I've updated it to better reflect my current frameworks and sharpened my thinking from the original piece. The core ideas remain the same.)
Another round of layoffs. Another wildly profitable company gutting jobs to protect executive bonuses. I saw the Meta headlines last week and felt that familiar mix of frustration and exhaustion.
At this point, we all know the script. A company makes a massive cut (3,600 jobs in Meta’s case) while simultaneously doubling executive bonuses. Meta isn’t struggling; it’s making billions. Yet in a system where shareholder value is king, employees are seen as costs to be slashed, while executive pay is a sacred expense.
Meta is the latest example, but it isn't the exception. It’s a feature of the system.
