Cutting through the red tape

You may feel that all this detail about constitu-

tions and bylaws is leading to a life of red tape

and the need to adhere excessively to bureau-

cratic procedures and formalities. Plus, don’t

we argue in Chapter 13 that you should avoid

over-bureaucratization and bureaucratic bloat?

Aren’t we contradicting ourselves in promoting

the need for a constitution and set of bylaws for

your social enterprise?

Over-bureaucratization comes from adding

more organizational functions than required

or more people to carry them out than needed.

Creating a constitution and a complemen-

tary set of bylaws is in no way excessive or

superfluous. Instead they serve as the very

organizational foundation of your nonprofit.

Constitutions and bylaws also help ensure that

your enterprise functions democratically.

Nonetheless, bits of over-bureaucratization

might creep into the framing of your bylaws

or the bylaws themselves. Bylaws, among

other things, regulate routine behavior in the

organization, and it’s common for the organiza-

tion to try to control member behavior that might

be harmful to its goals and mission. This could

happen, for example, when setting the number

of directors or the number of signatures (usually

those of directors) required on checks issued

by the enterprise. The treasurer and president

normally do the signing, but a third person might

be appointed as a substitute when one of the

first two is unavailable. Over-bureaucratization

may occur when a super-cautious director

insists on requiring, say, a fourth signature.

Authors of bylaws sometimes want to set more

rules than necessary for effectively running

board meetings. The best antidote we know

of to enacting unnecessary rules or rules that

are too constraining is for you and board mem-

bers to constantly ask yourselves whether your

enterprise can do without the rule being con-

sidered. Another way of living by this precau-

tion is to always try to find the simplest way of

achieving the purpose of the proposed rule.Doing more than minding the gap

So, what are the characteristics of an entrepreneurial mindset?

Things start off with a gap between what is and what ought to be — between

reality and imagination. The world seems out of whack, and not what it

could or should be. To the entrepreneur, this gap often causes a powerful

emotional response — sometimes even anxiety and frustration. The solution

can’t be to simply “mind the gap,” as the British say about stepping between

a subway car and platform. In the entrepreneur’s view, the gap has to be

repaired.

You may be thinking, “But isn’t that just discontent? After all, aren’t our lives

filled with unlimited needs, wants, and desires that we struggle daily to sat-

isfy? We’re hungry, we’re homeless, we’re lonely, we want to have kids, we

want the joys of family and community, we want spiritual rewards, and on

and on. . . . And we’re constantly trying to find ways to gratify all these urges.

So, are we all entrepreneurs then?”

No, and here’s why: Although we all feel the initial discontent that moti-

vates entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs organize to do something about it.

Entrepreneurs seem to be cut from a different cloth. Many people, if they

sense that can’t get from Point A (what is) to Point B (what ought to be),

downgrade their expectations so that getting to somewhere short of Point B

becomes doable and acceptable.

And that isn’t necessarily a bad move. The problem, of course, is that it

means settling for less, which isn’t what they really wanted in the first place.

So they’re still left with a gnawing, half-empty feeling. And that emptiness still

irritates them and can cause more dissatisfaction.