Management and operation of a law firm has taken many forms over the years and we are exploring new, innovative ways to run our firm. We are experimenting with the use of democratic principles, Teal, and self-management to develop a style that works for us and our clients. Earlier this week, Jason sent an article around to the team that highlighted The Wellington Community Law Centre (WCLC), a New Zealand law firm that went from a traditional hierarchical management system to fully self-managed in six months. Our firm has been discussing and implementing self-management techniques and it was inspiring and encouraging to read about WCLC’s journey. While reading the article I was tripped up by the reference to “advice process.” I had never heard the term before and we haven’t formally chosen a decision-making process to adhere to, so I did a little research. In a nutshell, advice process is an alternative to top-down and consensus decision making. Instead of executives or leaders making decisions, the employee who notices the problem or opportunity is empowered to act on that knowledge and becomes the decision-maker. The decision maker must seek input and advice from the relevant team members, leaders, and stake holders, but is ultimately responsible for creating a proposal and deciding what action to take. The process resonates with me because even as the least experienced member of our firm, I feel empowered to make decisions and suggestion for improving processes or creating new ones. I’m comfortable approaching the more senior attorneys to discuss my ideas and get their feedback and I’m able to pursue projects that interest me and be an active participant in my career development.
My favorite quote from Geoffrey Roberts, the general manager of WCLC, was, “When you treat people with high levels of trust, then they will live up to that. They will give you much more than you can imagine. Anecdotally, I argue that high levels of trust result in high levels of engagement and flexibility.” Perhaps more than anything else discussed, I feel that building trust is critical. For me, feeling trusted makes me feel like I can make mistakes and that I will get productive feedback that will help me grow as a lawyer. Having trust also means that I’m not afraid to come forward when I have made a mistake or to be held accountable for a decision I made. One way our firm fosters a trusting environment is through quarterly retrospectives. Retrospectives give us the chance to reflect on what is and isn’t working – they also help remove the negative connotations from accountability. Instead of accountability being scary, it simply becomes an opportunity to celebrate a win or learn from a decision that didn’t work out.
As a member of a law firm that is treading an unconventional path, I love seeing what WCLC has been able to accomplish. It gives me hope for the future of the profession and it’s nice to know our firm is in good company.
Hi there. Today we’ll be discussing the ways in which contemporary cooperatives incentivize founders to take entrepreneurial risk and reward their visionary zeal within the cooperative structure. This question regularly arises in our work.
Let’s start by unpacking what founder equity is really all about. When an entrepreneur starts up a new business, they’re taking a huge risk. Putting it all on the line for an idea they believe in. Many times, founders toil away on nights and weekends to get the idea off the ground until the business has gained enough validation to leave one’s place of steady employment. Founding a company puts a HUGE toll on a founder, her or his family, finances and friendships. Founding a company is an act of courage and bravery. It’s not for the faint of heart.
So, to ensure that a founder stands to benefit from the fruits of her or his efforts, founders are often allocated a substantial, if not controlling, interest in the company. This ensures the founder can exercise control over the vision, key strategic direction and major decisions the company will face. Particularly when it comes to bringing on new capital and potentially diluting the founder with equity awards to other key stakeholders, carving out a majority interest is important to ensure the founder has control. Control in the sense of governance – running the Board and even controlling the company’s shares.
Also, allocating a majority of stock for the founder also ensures the founder reaps a commensurate reward for the company’s success when it comes to dividends and the proceeds of a profitable liquidity event. Founders often hold tightly their coveted controlling interest for fear that investors will oust them if times get tough, if investor returns are subordinated for a social purpose, or if the founder’s vision for operating the company diverges from that of the investors.
Enlightened founders realize they what they really need to be successful is a talented team, aligned by a shared purpose. Shared purpose and values creates more incentive and motivation than any rising star shares ever could. After all, I have never heard of a founder who felt proud about the windfall they received when their company was forcibly sold at the peak of its economic value if the founder believed its social purpose had not fully been fulfilled.
Not all founders want to build a company to sell to the highest bidder. Many founders are looking to build generative companies that seek to contribute durable value to customers, communities, the environment and shareholders (see Zebra companies, B-Corps, Cooperatives). To found a company like this, many founders realize they need to build a stakeholder community with shared purpose and values.
Cooperatives, by design, dilute each and every member in terms of control and economic upside. Why? Members typically vote democratically, one-member, one-vote. Also, profits and liquidity proceeds are divided according to patronage.
Wait, what’s patronage again, you ask. A brief refresher. Patronage refers to the core business value a member contributes or consumes in relation to the total value of business the cooperative does with its members.
Traditionally, “pure form” or single class cooperatives organized themselves as either worker (W2 or contractor labor), producer (independent business producer), purchasing (independent business purchasing), or consumer (individual consumer for personal use) cooperatives. Not until the development the Uniform Limited Cooperative Association Act (“ULCAA”), and its adoption in 6 states around 2011 did the multi-stakeholder cooperative model take root. Today, most of our cooperative start-ups rely on the ULCAA statute in Colorado to structure multi-stakeholder cooperatives, known as limited cooperative associations (“LCA”). The emergence of the multi-stakeholder LCA will be relevant to the question at hand.
Back to the topic at hand. So, if “economic incentive” is shared not on the basis of stock ownership, like a traditional corporation, but rather on the basis of patronage, then what incentive does a founder have to sweat for their equity? Also, if a founder has the same voting rights (remember, one-member, one-vote) as all other members, why would a founder want to give up that much control before the start-up is even off the ground?
For the sake of this blog, we’ll assume that the cooperative model and business structure makes sense to you as a democratically controlled, responsibly capitalized and equitably incentivized form of business. Also, we’ll assume that you’re moved by adopting a business structure that subscribes to and incorporates into its DNA the 6 cooperative principles.
There are 7 primary complementary mechanisms that contemporary cooperatives use to provide the expectant incentive for a founder to apply the same energy to a start-up cooperative as they would to a traditional corporation. These are listed in no particular order of prevalence or effectiveness.
1. Ownership: Founder Patron-Member Class.
Among the most exciting and interesting developments in the cooperative sector is the increasing use of the “multi-stakeholder” cooperative, that is a cooperative with multiple classes of ownership.
Founders can be recognized and conferred a bundle of ownership rights in their own class. Founders “patronage” can be recognized from the time of conception. The Founder class can be allocated an identifiable percentage of net profit as part of the cooperative’s patronage dividend allocation.
Individual Founder-member patronage can be difficult to measure. A few recent ideas have been gaining traction. Since Founders are often giving most of their time and energy to the enterprise before it can reasonably be expected to generate a profit, the “patronage dividend” may be a misaligned tool to incent or reward “sweat equity.” A founder’s hardest work would be rewarded by the expect early losses that most start-ups experience. That’s certainly not the fair result we’re after.
So, to “save up” that sweat equity and apply it to periods when the cooperative is or should be profitable, the Founder-member class can adopt a patronage allocation formula that takes a weighted average of the past X years, such that the early years of heavy sweat equity investment are weighted higher than later years.
The purpose of adopting a weighted-average formula is to recognize the early years when allocating the Founder-member patronage dividend. Perhaps once the cooperative is up and running, the weighted-average formula can be modified to just a straight-line average of X years.
2. Governance: Class based director seats with class-based director elections.
It is common for the Board of Directors of a multi-stakeholder cooperative to allocate Board seats among the various ownership classes. Since most Boards must have a majority of seats filled by “patron-members,” bylaws could certainly provide for board seats to be filled by a certain number of founders.
In fact, whether or not the cooperative has created a distinct Founder-member class, the bylaws could either:
Maintain a qualification requirement that a certain number of directors be among the founders; or
Designate a share of Board seats to be filled by Founder-members. In this case, the number of Founder-member designated board seats could even represent a disproportionate share of the board in relation to Founder-members proportionate share of the membership writ large. As long as Founder-members constitute patron-members, there should be no problem creating a board with disproportionate Founder-member directors. Of course, the composition of the Board can be recalibrated over time either prescriptively in the bylaws or in an organic fashion by amending the bylaws (whether through a Board or member vote).
Of course, the bylaws could also require that a certain number of the Founder-member directors need to be present to constitute a quorum of the Board. This ensures that no Board business can take place without Founder-member directors present.
While not necessary, it is becoming customary for class-based board seats to be elected on a “district” or class basis. That is, Founder-members would elect the Founder-member board seats separately from Class X members electing those certain Class X board seats.
3. Governance: Founder as initial director with reasonable runway prior to first director election.
Many cooperatives are formed with initial directors who serve until either a date certain or a member election to elect directors. Many times, founders or Founding-members serve as the initial directors of a cooperative. Depending on the applicable cooperative statute, the Cooperative may be permitted in its bylaws to defer a member election for a reasonable period of time to provide a runway for the initial directors. Initial directors are subject to the same pressures and forces that face traditional start-up founders. There is the pressure to develop an initial product or service, to achieve product-market fit, to finance early operations, and to recruit a top-notch team.
These challenges are compounded by the need of a cooperative to attract members, raise member capital contributions, and to develop and practice economic democracy.
Giving initial directors a reasonable runway before they’re subjected to the whims of a democratic election protects the early risk and effort required to get a start-up off the ground. It also sets expectations among members that outcomes and profitability are to be judged over the long-term, not based on quarterly results.
If initial directors were to have a few insulated years in leadership positions, it is more likely the first election will product elected directors on merit, and not based on restlessness.
4. Governance: Founder-Member quorum and member voting.
If the Cooperative maintains a Founder-member class, the bylaws could require a certain minimum number of Founder-members to be present at a member meeting to constitute quorum for the conduct of member business.
Taking this concept further, the bylaws could also require that if a vote is to be taken by Patron-members voting together on a one-member one-vote basis, that Founder-member approval as a separate class is also required. This could look like:
Lesser of 50 or 10% of All Patron-Members (Workers, Users, Founders) PLUS
Majority of Patron-Members voting together as a single class (Workers, Users, Founders) PLUS
Super-majority of Founder-Members, voting separately as a class. Note: Does not include investor-member
5. Economics: Multiplier on Founder patronage vis-à-vis other patron-member classes.
If creating a Founder-member class does not make sense for one reason or another, an alternative approach could be to apply a multiplier to Founder’s time/contribution vis-à-vis other worker-members. This would weight Founder contributions when calculating patronage.
Given the problem identified earlier, this approach may only compound the inequity of applying a disproportionate share of early losses to the Founders. What we are trying to achieve is a financial interest in profit years after Founders took early risk and invested tremendous early energy (presumably with little or no guaranteed compensation).
6. Economics: Award preferred investor-membership interest/stock (either same or separate class as investor-members).
If a cooperative has created a class of stock to be sold to investors, the Cooperative could reserve a certain number of those shares to be awarded or sold at a discount to Founders. The Cooperative could either create a separate class or series of investor-shares to award to Founder-members, or it could award its single class of investor-shares to Founder-members.
Utilizing whatever economic rights to which the investor shares are entitled, awarding investor shares to Founders may offer a mechanism to offer modest economic upside.
Commonly, cooperative investor shares pay a target dividend, or make distributions up to an aggregate cap tied to the original purchase price. In both cases, the return on investment would provide some “equity-like” return for a Founder’s “sweat equity.”
Note that awarding stock that has a face value or fair market value higher than the award or purchase price may trigger an adverse tax consequence.
Subject to the requirements of the applicable cooperative statute and subject to the requirements of Internal Revenue Code sub-chapter T or sub-chapter K, respectively, the investor-shares awarded or sold at a discount to a Founder-member could be subject to appreciation. While it is most common for shares of a cooperative’s stock to be redeemable at the original purchase price, it is possible, with exceptions, to structure the investor stock so that the redemption price is higher than the original issue price. Of course, the mechanism by which the investor-shares are priced should be clearly expressed in the investment or award documents and approved by the Board. The Articles and/or Bylaws may also need to be amended to reflect the terms.
7. Founder as CEO with employment agreement approved by disinterested directors.
Most founders serve as their start-up’s first CEO. Among the connotations of the CEO title is the technical executive officer function to be played. That is, the CEO is often a functional management position appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the Board. Most boards don’t “do” the day-to-day work of the business; they hire and supervise a CEO.
Just like conventional start-ups, cooperative Boards can and often should appoint the founder to serve as the CEO. In fact, I often urge CEO appointments to be formalized with a written employment or services agreement that sets forth expectations, compensation (deferred, equity or otherwise), benefits, authority and termination. This is also the device by which the entity acquires right to the CEO’s intellectual property and business opportunities.
The written agreement is less about placing restrictions on the CEO, and more about establishing a framework for expectation setting and for delivering on an equitable exchange of value. Part of this exchange should involve a negotiation regarding compensation. Compensation can include salary, stock, deferred compensation, benefits, and even performance based pay. Note that there can be significant tax consequences to certain types of compensation and readers should always consult counsel and a tax advisor.
It is almost always advisable for these types of arrangements to be memorialized in writing. The cooperative should ensure that a sufficient number of independent directors ratify the agreement to avoid perceptions of impropriety or allegations of self-dealing.
Did this strike up any creative ideas for you? Share them in the comments below.
If the 18th century can be defined as the age of industrialization and competitive advantage of the nation state, the 19th century by the power of the corporation, and the 20th by corporate financialization, then, I believe, the 21st century will be defined by ownership. There is a movement afoot. We see the footprints and we hear the rallying cry.
Our firm is dedicated to democratizing access to the promise of ownership of businesses at all levels and in all of its complex dimensions. What are we really talking about?
I joined the movement in earnest when I left BigLaw in New York City and moved to Boulder, Colorado, to become the General Counsel and a Co-Owner of Namaste Solar. When I showed up in 2009, the company had been in business for more than four years and had grown to more than 40 owners from its three initial co-founders. Namaste Solar felt like the best illustration of an intentional community. Everyone literally and metaphorically showed up with passion, commitment, shared purpose and mutual respect. Co-Owners invested their hard-earned savings, sometimes asking friends and family for a loan to buy-in. Namaste Solar offered ownership and professional development opportunities to people with specialized professional training like me, as well as to people looking for a toe-hold in the “new energy economy.” I sat in monthly big picture meetings where the CEO had the same say as someone who spent their days climbing and descending ladders affixed to homeowners’ roofs.
Everyone showed up. I don’t just mean they plopped down and listened half-heartedly to esoteric reports. I mean people SHOWED UP. Owners engaged and prodded the CFO for more detail into monthly profit and loss statements. Installers debated (respectfully, of course) the finer points of the business strategy and volatile policy landscape with senior leadership.
This is what economic democracy should look like. We all owned the company; its reputation, integrity, confidence in its service, its people, and its success. Co-ownership didn’t just give me the personal experience with which to launch Jason Wiener|p.c., it gave ordinary people a chance to be involved in and OWN something bigger than themselves. It gave a chance to find purpose in work. I believe this is what we all strive for as human beings.
Why do I, and a growing movement of people around the world, work hard to support employee ownership? I believe in a different and better world, where economic opportunity is more equitable and available. This belief is my motivation. What follows is my vision for the world I am working to create, and how I put that vision into practice at Jason Wiener | p.c.
We design and architect thoughtful ownership structures for organizations that have a purpose to improve social or environmental well-being, opportunity, sustainability, and equity. We believe that ownership design optimizes the organization to address the root cause – rather than mere symptoms – of social and environmental ills, by aligning incentives, promulgating shared values, increasing transparency, inviting access to those innovators closest to the need or the problem, and therefore also solutions.
Ownership…it’s a pretty fundamental notion, however, it’s underlying attributes are often under-scrutinized and under-appreciated.
Ownership matters. There’s a movement afoot. From craft beer to taxicab transportation. From solar energy to farmland. From housing to technology. From data to golf balls. Entrepreneurs, investors and ordinary people are rediscovering an age-old business model that is conducive to people-centricity. We are learning that by bringing business and enterprise to a more human scale we can reduce dependency on governmental largesse, improve community and civic engagement, enhance durability and sustainability, and manifest economic democracy and sovereignty.
Ownership benefits those who possess it. That’s a fairly obvious statement. Ownership confers exclusive rights. For too long, ownership has been the domain of those in positions of power, those of great wealth, those with privilege, and, occasionally, and sometimes incidentally, those with unique talent. I’m not intentionally trying to be political. The current economy is not working for most people. The concentration of wealth is at the highest point it’s been since the robber barons helped to precipitate the Great Depression. Income inequality, and the consequent concentration of wealth are also accelerating. At the same time, we are living through the greatest wealth transfer in human history. Until recently, only approximately 2% of Americans were legally permitted to invest directly in private companies.
We believe in and work hard every day to construct a more positive, equitable, resilient and inclusive economy. One in which the chief contributors of value are conferred the rights to ownership. One in which ordinary people can invest in and support local business. One in which those who patronize and care about a local business can be engaged in the critical issues and decisions that it faces.
We work with all types of legal entity types to advance this mission. We have a particular passion for cooperatives, limited cooperative associations and public benefit corporations. We do the deep thinking to thoughtfully design ownership models where those who own the business differentiate it as much as the quality of its product or service.
We work with all types of business models to expand access to mission-aligned capital, allowing anyone who cares about the business to have an opportunity to support it financially. We also work with non-profit organizations to invest their endowment in ways that support their charitable mission, as well as non-profit organizations seeking to expand economic inclusivity.
We believe ownership will become as much a business’ product as the good or service it sells.
Ownership is a bundle or rights. Ownership confers the right to control, exclude, transfer, to give access. To restrict, condition or rescind access. To bequeath. To monetize, securitize, collateralize, and to liquidate. Ownership can be exercised offensively or defensively. Ownership can catalyze or support social or environmental equity, or it can erode it.
Our mission is to democratize ownership. We believe workers, producers, farmers, entrepreneurs, creators, freelancers, crafts people, professionals ought to be in control of the means of production. We believe employee/worker owned firms are more resilient, profitable, sustainable, and durable. We believe community owned land leads to better stewardship, environmentally sustainable practices, more realistic and sustainable pricing, and healthier communities. We believe democratized capital leads to more sustainable business models, less volatility and risk, more engagement, better transparency and healthier social and financial returns.
Too often, ownership discussions happen episodically and intensively; among co-founders, with prospective investors, and when considering a liquidity event, such as a merger or acquisition. While better late than never, ownership is constant responsibility and privilege. It involves so many dimensions, all happening in a highly dynamic and unpredictable reality. We believe ownership ought to be elevated to the same attention as a company’s brand, its product design, and its business strategy.
Ownership ought to be intentional, considering at the outset the many possible trajectories the company can take. If little about a company’s logo, name, or product is left to chance, why then would ownership? That’s often what entrepreneurs do when going after venture capital or thinking about their exit.
We believe a well-architected ownership blueprint not only avoids the many problems inherent in the dominant forms of venture finance, it also clearly aligns the interests of every material stakeholder to the firm’s success. Workers’ contributions are valued with both a voice and an economic stake in the firm’s success. Early product adopters are remunerated and recognized for the risk involved in purchasing a nascent technology. Founders are sufficiently incented but have the opportunity to build high-talent, mission-aligned teams.
Involving the key stakeholders in the ownership design of the company yields better companies, better products and better outcomes. Even better to bake stakeholder ownership into the firm’s DNA at inception. Lest it sounds like conventional ownership is ill-considered, shared stakeholder ownership is as much a destination as it a starting point. Plenty of businesses are looking to convert to employee and stakeholder ownership models.
The conventional wisdom is to keep a start-up’s capitalization table simple, uncluttered and short. In other words, vacant for investor-ownership. Many firms utilize what are known as “incentive stock option” plans to incentive employee recruitment, retention and performance. An option generally involves a contractual right to exercise the option to purchase the firm’s stock or equity at a pre-defined price. These stock option plans have certain tax benefits under the Internal Revenue Code. What makes a stock option so appealing for the firm is that it does not need to account for the option as issued equity on its capitalization table until the option is exercised. Also, most conventionally structured cap tables cap the option pool at 10-15% of total common stock. Employees like options because they offer the promise of a windfall if the positive difference between the fair market value of the stock and the “strike price” is large. Many stock option plans, however, restrict the right to exercise an option to certain liquidity events or the company undergoing an initial public offering. Unfortunately, IPO (or initial public offering) activity is drying up at the moment. So, the practical likelihood that an employee can exercise a stock option for a windfall is dwindling.
We believe in a more authentic and transparent approach. When suitable, and in consideration of the many factors involved, actual and direct ownership can be a powerful and straight forward approach. Many options confer actual and direct ownership to a firm’s employees, producers, consumers or other stakeholders. We are not daunted by the complexity. We have the experience to nestle meaningful ownership structures into many business models and entity types.
We believe there is no better time than now for a firm to consider stakeholder ownership.
Join us on this journey. Check back regularly for updates.
Sign up to receive notifications of new blog posts and our newsletter We will never share your contact information with any third parties.