The Personal Bottom Line

This is an essay of quite a different depth than usual - hooray for Sarah for writing it and for setting such a direct challenge.

I have thought about this subject quite a lot over the years, including discussing it with many in the early years of the Social Venture Network and more recently in the class on social innovation I taught for the past five years at Stanford. Being an actual entrepreneur is usually an irrational act with sometimes brutal consequences for one's personal life. Being a social entrepreneur only compounds both, but, of course, also has unique rewards IF successful.

This year is a bit of a milestone for me on this front - it is the 25th anniversary of my marriage and the 25th anniversary of the creation of Working Assets Funding Service, which I helped found and for which I remain the much more than full time president.

I have no doubt that the divorce rate or singleness rate is quite high among social entrepreneurs, but it is also high among traditional entrepreneurs and social activists. I do not think it is possible to succeed as an activist or as an entrepreneur and lead a balanced life in the traditional sense of that phrase. To quote the Byrds, or perhaps scripture, for everything there is a season - succeeding as an activist, entrepreneur, or even as a parent is almost always a two decade or longer commitment with wild swings in intensity, financial and psychic debt, failures of various kinds, and payoffs that are long in coming. It is not for most people - indeed, it is not for the vast majority of people.

To have a life partner buy into this requires some combination of great luck, paths that complement each other's in timing of peaks and valleys, lots of talking, and resiliency.

I will refrain from a check list of advice, but again, thanks to Sarah for her considerable contributions to the field and to opening up the third rail of entrepreneurship while keeping it analytical!

I began planning starting a nonprofit alomost 10 years ago, years before my partner and I had a child. And it was after our son was born that I plunged in and started the nonprofit (I quit my job to do so). I couldn't think of a better way to not only do what I love, but also to convey to our son social values and lifestyle choices we believe are important, values that go against the grain of today's consumerist society.

Amd even though we have taken a financial hit, we are glad that we are raising our son in an environment that seriously values caring for the poorest amongst us, and more importantly that we are making a difference in their lives. Just spreading the spirit of 'Ubuntu' we hope :)

One way of looking at it is in terms of a personal triple bottom line. In general, I feel better able to make a positive difference if financially secure (economic), my activities are supported by the communities with which I interact and become a part (social), and my use of natural resources (e.g. water, _ for food, re-use, recycling, minimum impact on biodiversity, ...) is sustainable (environmental). These three "pillars" of sustainability are inter-dependent and apply at all levels: personal, spheres of influence, family, organisation, community, country, ..., the world.

I think highly work-oriented individuals are simply so committed to their cause or their work that they don't put much time into looking for a partner or enjoying the types of activities in which one might meet a prospective mate. These people may also be so goal-specific that they likewise don't waste time in dead-end or meaningless relationships, and therefore find themselves single, whereas much of the general population does (Considering that 50% of marriages supposedly end in divorce). Perhaps, and now this sounds exceedingly lofty, social entrepreneurs tend to be the types of people that will accept nothing less than deep meaning, and that is just simply hard to find.

It is also true that some of the personality traits that make one a good entrepreneur - ambition, having clear goals, high self-esteem can come with some downsides - like narcissistic behavior, self-absorption, easily bored with monogamy. However, it has been proven that the effectiveness of a leader or entrepreneur and their personality type are completely independent.

On the subject of finances, in my own experience, I quit my job as soon as the funding for my social startup would cover my rent so I could devote all of my time there, even though it meant less than half the money. Whilst I think it's important to plan for the future, I don't need to consume a lot to be happy, and I am satisfied by working somewhere meaningful. Even now, despite school loans and nearing the end of business school, I'm perfectly happy to accept a less-than-typical MBA salary in order to work at an intellectually stimulating and socially beneficial job (don't tell IESE!). Call me delusional, but I think this falls in parallel with your first topic. A meaningful job and a meaningful relationship = a meaningful and happy life. That's my personal bottom line.

Thanks for your thoughts,
Ashley

(If my name sounds vaguely familiar - we met in Amsterdam at the EVPA conference. I hope to see you in Barcelona for Doing Good & Doing Well in February.)

Armchair philosophy is a term used to highlight the difference between passively philosophising about the nature of the universe and actively investigating .

Clark
<a href="http://www.ccnabraindumps.com">ccna</a>
USA

It's wonderful to hear from you! Thanks for sharing and I look forward to hearing more from folks about what helps and/or hinders their "personal triple bottom lines"....

Whether an entrepreneurial venture is a for-profit technology startup, or a nonprofit save-the-world enterprise, it is considered strange and unusual if the entrepreneur is not entirely committed, entirely passionate, and entirely consumed by the demands of the job.

This archetype does not leave either the time or energy that strong relationships with worthy partners requires. Commitment is by its nature a zero-sum game - if you give 100% to your enterprise, there is none available for your relationships.

While it is easy to claim the archetype is unhealthy, it does not prove easy to accommodate the entrepreneur’s need for the conventional pleasures of romance and domesticity. Successful entrepreneurs may simply be the ones who did not attempt such accommodation, and simply postponed the pursuit of partnership, intentionally or not, until such time as they can hand off at least some of the operating control to others.

In addition to the limited available commitment, there is the issue of selectivity. By definition, an entrepreneur demands that their time be spent making a difference - and thus they are predisposed to forgo anything but relationships with those few partners who measure up to their own fairly lofty standards. Statistically, it should be expected that they find themselves disproportionately single - either because the job demands stressed a pre-entrepreneurship relationship to the point of divorce, or because there wasn't energy enough or time to start one in the first place.

Sara's bio mentions Dartmouth, U Chicago, and Berkeley. If she wants a life partner with a similar intellectual heft; who also spent their life pursuing impact rather than income . . . the simple statistical truth is that not many men or women are likely to qualify. Most of them are probably social entrepreneurs - each on their own quest, and too busy to devote the time to find her (or find you, or me, etc.).

Those of us who find ourselves questing towards some chivalric goal in the modern age are not satisfied with the damsels-in-distress (or their masculine equivalent) that the old stories spent so much time discussing. Because the quest itself is so much a part of who we are, only someone else on a quest could possibly understand us.

Sara’s discomforting singleness is not uncommon - which suggests a niche dating service might be formed to bring entrepreneurs together for more than networking. Here’s the opening pitch:

    Do you desire a partner strong enough to survive intensity?
    Smart enough to provide an insightful audience?
    Confident enough not to need to change you?
    Someone who wants to make the world a better place as much as you do?
    Do you seek to be both inspired and inspiring?
    Are you looking for someone who is confident, active, challenging, intense, capable, and connected to something larger than themselves?
    Someone who can surprise you, who knows stuff you don't, and who can hold their own in conversations with, well, anybody?

If you said yes to any of these questions, logon before midnight tonight and join ELLP (Entrepreneurs Looking for Life Partners) . . .

Marvelous comments, Robert! ELLP! I love it. I would toss out there that many of the most interesting kinds of intelligence and certainly wisdom have little to do with academic credentials....

What do you think, folks? Should social entrepreneurs just recognize that during the more intensely entrepreneurial phases of our lives, which hopefully we don't remain in forever, relationships will take a back seat? Or should time to nurture one's personal relationships be something entrepreneurs should organize to fight for as a right, like labor once fought for the right to a weekend?

I agree that academic credentials do not guarantee interesting conversation, nor the kind of incandescent effervescence that the elusive mr. or ms. right is supposed to generate when in our presence. In another blow to the romantic value of academic accomplishment, scientists tell us that a substantial component in attractiveness is whether our hardwired and more primitive instincts decide that this other person smells right, which seems to be an unpredictable but surprisingly accurate test of genetic compatibility.

Academic credentials, however, are a useful if imperfect shorthand for early accomplishment and expectations/experience compatibility. They also seem to help get conversations started - as in you went to Dartmouth, I went to and have taught at Williams, and thus we could be sure that at least we have the New England small college thing in common. Sure, you could have proudly voted for George Bush and the conversation would die when we got to politics, but at least we both think we know something about the other person's experience.

My co-founder was somehow able to maintain his relationship with his college girlfriend thru the early pangs of a robotics startup, and has against the odds not only married her and had kids, but actually sees them occasionally. There has been weeks where he has not seen them, however, and more than a comfortable dose of drama. There were certainly times when the insecurity and lumpy cashflow of startup life threatened that relationship. At the other end of the spectrum, I was single when the startup began, and have not found the time to devote to forging a distinct and self-justifying life with a partner in parallel.

For what it is worth, this idea of yours has a perfect theme song you might have heard before, which just so happens to work with the Entrepreneurs Looking for Life Partners acronym rather well . . .

ELLP! I need somebody. ELLP! Not just anybody, ELLP! You know I need someone. ELLP!
When I was younger, so much younger than today
I never needed anybody's help in any way
But now these days are gone I'm not so self-assured
Now I find I've changed my mind and opened up the doors . . .

Robert,

That's hilarious!

Roshan

Thanks Sara for your insightful essay. You have hit the nail on issues I've struggled, and am still struggling, with.

Some of us are lucky enough to have a partner in life who are supportive of our journeys in spirit, but we perpetually struggle with financial security. Less for ourselves, but for family members who may be dependent on us. 2 adults can bootstrap our way to fulfill our passions, but it may be too much to ask that of our families. Personal dreams of starting a family, etc. may even be set aside due to lack of financial security and/or affordability of the reality of children: medical, insurance, schooling, etc.

It is hopeful to see the ecosystem for social entrepreneurs providing more avenues to obtain more financial security, in the form of incubation funding that provides the resources for a relatively stable personal situation that allows social entrepreneurs to focus on their work (e.g. Ashoka, Acumen, etc.)

However one constant struggle is the ability to obtain reliable financial planning advice that is understanding of a social entrepreneurs' financial situation. This is partly due to higher possible unpredictability of income/cash flows of social entrepreneurs vs. non-social entrepreneurs.

How to devise or manage a personal savings plan given unpredictability in income; how to plan for insurance or eventuality given the high-risk location/work that SEs are in; how to obtain some form of medical/financial security for our dependents.

In conventional financial planning terms, I suspect SEs are a tougher "clientele" to crack compared to commercial entrepreneurs, given that income/cash flow patterns can be very different. Is it inevitable that there is a polarized option of "steady income" vs. "no financial security"? Can commercial entrepreneurial financial planning be adapted for social entrepreneurs?

I would love to hear some feedback on this, this is an ongoing struggle I have noted in the social space in my country.

Thanks Sara for your post!

Any financial planners out there want to join the conversation here? It would be outstanding to hear from you!

One idea some of us have batted around is some sort of mutual real estate investment fund for social entrepreneurs who lack partners or family members who might co-invest in property to gain access to downpayment capital for a home. There is something called Shared Equity Housing that could fit the bill, although it caps the amount at which one can sell one's property and may require that the property remain "affordable" (priced below market). To the extent that owning one's own home is a good financial plan (which is probably debatable certainly in some contexts) this might help. What other ideas have people come up with?

Sara, thank you for such interesting and profound discussion points… and sorry it has taken me so long to pick up this thread. As a practicing financial planner and advisor, I’m not exactly "allowed” to post things freely in public forums. EVERYTHING runs through compliance – it’s wonderful. So here are some thoughts that may or may not have been fully vetted by the powers that be.

I’m overwhelmed by the incredible and insightful contributions throughout this discussion. As much as I’d like to encompass them all in my mind boggling response, I must set expectations - I'm really not that clever, AND I can't write! HERE WE GO...

[“However one constant struggle is the ability to obtain reliable financial planning advice that is understanding of a social entrepreneurs' financial situation. This is partly due to higher possible unpredictability of income/cash flows of social entrepreneurs vs. non-social entrepreneurs.”]

While I agree with much of what has been discussed in this financial planning thread, I would like to make a couple of points as a planner working with SEs and traditional entrepreneurs (TEs) alike. I must admit, I don’t see what is particularly unique about the financial planning concerns facing SEs vs. TEs. For one, it’s challenging to obtain reliable financial planning advice, period, entrepreneur or not. Advisors’ incentive structures are often misaligned with client centricity, we are often intimidated to walk into the “dark areas” (seriously, who likes talking about life and disability insurance), and fewer still are adept at listening (I mean really listening) to where clients are coming from and what they ultimately hope to accomplish. Truly advising someone requires leadership – empathy, understanding, resolve, discipline, directness, et al. I won’t climb up on my leadership pedestal, but the readers of this site know precisely how challenging it is to find genuine leadership. So what you end up with is a financial advising system battling on the merits of “objectivity” or “specialization” but actually practicing the easiest way to earn a buck. This is certainly not exclusively the case, but I do believe it occurs throughout many financial planning practices, whether big wire houses or boutique independent firms.

Furthermore, the questions posted above ["How to devise or manage a personal savings plan given unpredictability in income; how to plan for insurance or eventuality given the high-risk location/work that SEs are in; how to obtain some form of medical/financial security for our dependents?"] are questions, among others, that most people / families have, including TEs and SEs. It’s true that entrepreneurs live in a very different world of cash flow, but this is something that can and should be planned for with assumptions that can and should be measured regularly for accuracy. Financial planning is an ongoing process, regularly evaluating progress and updating for the inevitable change that life delivers.

The biggest (and quite significant) difference I do see between TEs / SEs rests in the ultimate payoff – TEs tend to be focused on “the liquidity event”, the big payday. SEs big payday, from my experience, occurs more along the lines of achieving your Personal Bottom Line discussed more thoroughly elsewhere in this discussion thread. For many of the SEs with whom I’ve had the pleasure to work , this Personal Bottom Line includes building a sustainable business that delivers on its social mission and affords an income allowing them to bring about financial security for themselves and their families. What that means in terms of specific objectives is COMPLETELY unique to the individual – and THAT is the role of “reliable financial planning advice”.

I have not found SEs to be tougher clientele to “crack” - I’ve actually found you to be easier. Laying out an effective plan has more to do with one’s openness to the process, one’s willingness to explore the meaning and purpose of money, and to thoroughly define what you hope to accomplish. SEs, in my experience, are MUCH more open to the insightful self-exploration that this requires. Which products are available to solve your family’s risk mitigation challenges? What investment strategy should be used to align with your core values? How much money do you need in the jar in the case of emergencies and opportunities? Retirement planning, education savings, estate planning…

All of these are very important – but not as important as finding someone you trust who will genuinely and deeply listen to you when answering the question “What do you most hope to accomplish from this process?” This answer is where reliable financial advice begins.

This is an easier question to answer for men than for women. For men, I have been married for 40 years. I married the person who was my best friend and was the most fun of all the girls I dated. Even though I was a science/social entrepreneur nerd, before I was married I was able to date girls who were considered the best looking and most desireable (yes, I was spoiled). These girls later became a model, broadway actress, major beauty contest winner, professor at a major university, doctor, etc. Many were "high maintenance" who required lots of attention. I broke up with anyone who was high maintenance since I prefered working on my science/social entrepreneur projects. These girls often got divorced later in life when their husband could not give them the attention they felt they deserved. I always felt that men should have seen the high qualities of my wife although many did not until she got a little older. She became a doctor and was a high-level executive for a while until we both got tired of working with other executives and returned to the science/medical/social entrepreur life. We raised two children who have become highly successful in life already and have overcome obstacles that many people would not be able to overcome.
For women, remember that you will not always be the center of attention. It is better to develop your own life, be fun, and have lots of friends. Boys/men are not stupid. They recognize your inner qualities. If you are their best friend you definetly have an advantage.

Since your generalization is addressing all women Paul, I'll answer for us - being the center of attention, waiting for calls, then expecting to be waited on is so 1950's - you're right though, best friends have an advantage. I agree it's about equal status.

I'm optimistic too Sara, that monogamy is the most evolved choice - it's just not always available to everyone - but like Daniela said (in two-step) 'splitting up ain't so bad.' I think the 'personal return' or payoff of 'discomforting singleness' is the strength and resilience it produces. You're right too Sara, it comes down to patterns, and for pattern-makers, there's not always an automatic fit. Marriage is, of course, an analogy for what social entrepreneurs do - the longer they stick at it, the more fruitful the results.

Thanks for your thoughts, Jo. I agree that there is a fascinating and rich type of "personal return" that comes from the phenomenon of living mindfully through breakup. And that persistence (if not too bull-headed) may win the day in many realms.

Paul, I think you raise a very interesting point (although your choice of terms may set some folks, particularly women, a bit on the defensive). To what extent does the high rate of relationship breakup these days have to do with the change in expectations on the part of both women, social entrepreneurs and others for their own happiness and personal fulfillment? If social entrepreneurs (at least of the younger generation) are the type of people who essentially shoot the moon career-wise -- by proactively seeking personally fulfilling, socially beneficial and presumably reasonably compensated work -- then there is an interesting hypothesis to be made that we also bring this mindset to our personal relationships, hoping or even expecting them to have high levels of emotional and physical intimacy, be intensely cooperative/mutually "value-added", and be extremely interesting. Are these in fact our expectations? How different is this than in generations past? Can or should social entrepreneurs or others revise their expectations again, and if so, based on what wisdom?
   

In my case Sara, it was so. It was far from what I'd hoped for.

Realistically, what I new invest both in terms of funds and tine, though relatively small could not be justified by someone supporting and giving quality time to raise a family.

I'd got to the point 6 years ago of attempting to marry and adopt 2 young children. That fell apart as I attempted to juggle supporting them and keeping our social enterprise going by downsizing my home to be free of major outgoings.

Perhaps doing what we're focussed on now is a consequence of experience. We're trying to influence policy such that all children can have family type homes with a family of mankind rather than family of mine perspective.

http://www.facebook.com/[…]/311279541427?v=info

Jeff
   

Thanks for joining the conversation, Jeff. Does the level of time you have to devote to the enterprise or mission wax and wane or have a "lifecycle"? I wonder if you envision in your work, or have seen generally, a typical duration of maximum effort that declines over time to something more relationship-friendly.

No Sara, It's been pretty constant for some years. I'd certainly make time to be more relationship friendly, however, as and if.

I just clicked in to this conversation, and I have a few observations to toss into the pot:

The subject of incentives for taking career directions less conventional has intrigued me since we created Rainforest Action Network in 1985. This was my first deep dive into the NGO psyche, where like Social Entrepreneurs, the community has more singles and breakups than we are led to believe are the statistical norm.

My conclusion at the time was that we were perpetuating conditions which selected for personality types who derived their personal payback through being "ego-warriors", a state I described as having an "Indiana Jones Complex". I still believe (and observe) this is so in many cases, but I no longer think it's that simple. I know for myself that I've done more facilitation from the back seat than I have led from the front lines, so my own payback is not tied up with grandstanding and heroic acclaim.

Obsession does play a role though. This characterizes the types of people who pick up an idea and run with it, nurture it, stand behind and often fund it.... despite the fact it is risky and perhaps not well understood (yet) by others. But is such obsessive, or dogged, persistent fixation unique to Social Entrepreneurs? I don't think so. You can see it in inventors, avid sports people, collectors and hobbyists, some membership clubs...it's all around us, and one of the many personality types which enrich the human experience.

What I believe now is that the personal bottom line is more about balance on a personal and interpersonal scale, and balance is not static, although we can train for it and develop good instincts. It's a dynamic state, and as such requires us to live our lives as awake and alert beings, not on auto-pilot.

It's also about managing expectations; first our own, then those of our families and partners. Some of the expectations have us comparing "successful" partnerships (legally married or otherwise) to our own. The fact is there are loads of shorter term relationships amongst all groups, and happy lifelong partners are rare. This is especially true for partnerships where both people are fully and mindfully present, and in effect re-committing their hearts and souls to the relationship on an ongoing basis.

So maybe on balance, we as Social Entrepreneurs are no more or less alone or relationship-stressed than the rest? Just different.

Fascinating point- that when one is "mindfully present" and recommits heart and soul on an ongoing basis, there may be more opportunity to rethink whether the relationship makes sense and more likelihood one or both will at some point opt out.

This reminds me of a thought I had a long time ago, when first experiencing the phenomenon of the one-year grant term from nearly all our funders at the social enterprise where I worked. The fact that funders have to rethink whether to commit funding every year means that more will choose not to than might if we had funders who were committed for a longer period of time. This raises the risk that the organization will fail, both at continuing to operate financially, and at achieving its mission.

Maybe we should try out the strategic deployment of mental and philanthropic auto pilot?
 

Dear Sara,

(First up, congrats on nailing a really important topic...)

I'm now in my late-20s, but decided about 5 or 6 six years ago that I would have to meet my 'obligations' in a way that I found completely agreeable in the long-term. By 'obligations', I always had in mind that I would be a father some day. Now I have two step-kids, and my partner is pregnant with our first.

There is one keystone to every relationship, and that is communication. If you are going through a phase where you have less time to offer to those within your most intimate circle, then you have to speak about that. Likewise your partner has to feel free to let you know that they need more of your time/attention. I have always tried to be clear that a "family first" attitude is essential. Time is our most scarce resource, and if we don't 'invest' enough in our relationships, then they are doomed. Be explicit about your hopes and fears. It may not be enough, but it can only help...

On monogamy: In a world as complex and bursting with soooooo many attractive possibilities, a conscious monogamy is probably the only way to maintain a sense of balance, belonging and trust in the long run.

As social entrepreneurs, we should try to be aware of the fact that we are leaders and innovators. How we interact at a personal level influences how our organisations will interact with the world, and also impact on society as a whole. The home is the well-spring of love in our lives, and if we take time to share and nurture love there, then we can carry that process out into our organisations and to society at large. Neglecting to look after this most basic human need could lead us to forget about the greater purpose which we should hold to, and instead focus on purely egotistical perspectives and motives. Our work ends up as little more than spiritual masturbation.

Do you invest so much time and effort in your 'crusade' because you can't face the strain and fear which needs to be overcome in order to build a solid relationship? Or maybe it's to distract from or to compensate for a lack of meaning in your personal life? (And these are general questions, not for any one person.)

With (the only thing that really matters in the end) love,

Rory

Thanks for sharing your story, Rory. I appreciate when you say that you "always had in mind that I would be a father some day" and that that would come with obligations. You foresaw that there would be both financial and personal needs you would have when that day came. It's my observation that some women (not all and perhaps this differs by socioeconomic or cultural subgroup), while they may have in mind to have kids one day, don't necessarily anticipate bearing the financial obligations themselves. In their early twenties they may rather anticipate the personal time commitment they will have to make, and build that into their career plans. There is either an explicit or implicit assumption that they will have a partner who will help on the financial side, and hopefully on the personal side. This does not always occur, and it occurs less frequently now-- even as women in general have more economic means.

To your final question, we might also ask whether conversely people apply the same effort and dogged determination to their relationships that they apply to their work (or 'crusade' as you say), and whether this level of effort is helpful or not-- personally or professionally.

Thanks for writing this Sara. I'm saddened to read some of your details. I wish you the best.

My wife and I just had this conversation (our version of it anyway) yesterday. I work in the "making the world a better place" industry. My wife has worked in it as well. We have sacrificed financially because of this. I have an MBA from a well-thought-of school and, as we say...I have "options.' I choose to work in a field where my cash compensation is pretty poor, but the chance to change the world is pretty high. This puts certain strains on the family and on me. It also meets some deep needs--for me, my wife, and (hopefully--but only time will tell) my daughter.

My financial axis is my remuneration denominated in standard terms- I prefer total compensation/unit effort. My potential is very, very high. My actual looks more like the "before" salaries from the business school rankings in the popular press. Low compensation is, frankly, a bit embarrassing, and means that my family does without a lot of the things that our neighbors have/do/desire/etc. Money is tight and we have to carefully plan for our future (retirement, college, housing, health/elder-care, and so on).

My social axis marks the return that I get from others for the work, volunteering and the other stuff I do. These are the "external" rewards: kudos, validation, etc. It's funny, I get almost none of this. Most of my peers have little idea about what I've done, what it means, and how their lives are better because of it. My immediate family knows, respects and acknowledges what I've contributed. My closest co-workers and co-conspirators do as well. But these returns are far more meager than my financial compensation. And, I am just fine with that. I am not in this business for glory (or riches for that matter). More attention (to a point) would be nice, but it's not why I do what I do.

The personal axis marks the internal rewards I gather. It reflect how my life tracks my values. These rewards, over the years, have been immense. I create new (often fundamentally new) things often. I work with smart, dedicated people. I have a high degree of freedom to explore new lines of work, and a high degree of responsibility to deliver. I usually satisfy my (some would say almost pathological) need to learn new things. These spill over into my private life in (mostly) good ways. The results of what I have done matter- to the freshwaters of North America, to our kids, to the next generation. I have measured my impact and am sometimes shocked by what has changed because of efforts I've led, supported, cheered for, worked on or designed. My family gets that chance to live our values. This means taking risks, but we welcome those (mostly), as long as we understand and manage them. These rewards overcome, but are mitigated by, the embarrassment of low compensation.

Now, I'm not sure that these are the axes that you had in mind and I welcome feedback. I sense that "social value creation" is expected to be in this mix. For me, that fits in the personal reward function. It is a choice that I make, driven by my values. I do believe it can be measured, but that is a product of my work, not a return.

What interests me about thinking critically on personal/financial/social returns, is the surface of trade-offs that they map. (Think of 3 dimensional indifference curves). What is intriguing is that the social, personal, and financial returns are not (and cannot be) independent. The surfaces, therefore are less like conic sections and are (at least in my case, not smooth. I get trapped in certain situations, where the amount of sacrifice required to do something different is greater than the rewards, and requires a greater leap of faith than I can muster. On the other hand, because of the nature of my (and most of the readers of this blog) work, the measures on the axes (and the functions that create them) are constantly being re-written. Ideas like co-housing, cooperatives, b-corporations, and such change the trade-off surfaces by creating new options.

One last comment, and then I'll stop. (this is intended to give the reader hope) I do not like the notion of a personal bottom line, any more than I like the pre-occupation with net income in businesses. Profit, as Peter Drucker reminded us, is not the purpose of business, any more than breathing is the purpose of life. Profit--personal or otherwise--is simply a measure of whether the providers of equity capital are being sufficiently compensated for the risks they are taking. The difficulty of a personal bottom line, is that they costs of "doing business" are already subtracted. Maybe I'm being too literal, but I think you're exploring the personal returns that one experiences as a result of work.

Thanks again for opening this up.

Thanks for these fascinating, thoughtful and eloquent comments, David! I look forward to hearing what others think... so much in here!

Sara, thank you for addressing this important issue - one, I believe, ultimately may have the biggest impact on the sustainability of the social enterprise field. I have been concerned about this issue since I met you at Berkeley when I was the ED of Net Impact. I won't comment on previous authors' observations but rather share my thoughts on your three questions. For others in the conversation I have been with my wife for 34 years, have two grown sons and two grandchildren. When I first met my wife I had concluded 5 years where I unilateraly was going to save the world - first as a Peace Corps Volunteer, later as a community organizer with a Legal Services organization. I was on the path to complete burnout and the attendant resentment, frustration and anger that can produced. In meeting my wife I was able to reset, focus on my personal life, develop new skills that provided financial support and continue to make a positive contribution to the world.

1. Are SEs more single or divorced than the general population?

    I think the more targeted question is compared to SEs' peer group. SEs from my 10 years experience in the field are highly educated, career or impact oriented and, at least in the US, focused on either coast. From a very unscientific sampling of my sons and their peers, 30-40 years of age, none of whom is working specifically as a SE, but many of them are doing things in their careers that have huge implications for the development of the SE field, 27% are single, 36% are part of a couple, 37% are married.

2. Are SEs at more financial risk than the general population?

I would argue that if you work in the private sector you are at very high risk regardless of industry. Workers in the government seem to be in a better position in terms of job security and financial benefits, particularly in the long run. But I think this is a challenge the SE community has not adequately addressed because we are still trying to make the case to the larger world the our field can provide greater significant systemic value, both financially and socially, than our current system has. Until we do that the financial community will not commit to support us and the financial rewards that each SE deserves will not occur. And if we don't do this we run the risk of being co-opted by established players who see this as a threat. As a baseball fan I use to think SE was in the first inning. I now think we are still in spring training. The creation of economic value for SEs will come when we demonstate on a scalable basis how social enterpise can provide more value to our world than the damaged system we currently have.

3. The personal value to a philanthropist?

    SEs have to turn this issue around. The fundmental truth is that philanthropists who made their own fortunes would never have made them if VCs and other financiers had demanded and controlled these entrepreneurs in the way that these philanthropists now want to control SEs. SEs must make the business case, whether you are a for or a non profit, to social investors/philanthropists, on why their financial commitment will have an impact and the value it will bring to them. How this is done will probably vary on your work and your potential supporters.

4. Final observation

    Carl Rogers talks about life is a process. We all think life is better when - when I graduate, when I get the raise, when I get married etc...Live your life today, with an eye that it puts another brick on the foundation of your life leading to the next phase. Know that it is a process. As much as SEs want to change the world I learned a long time ago that the world is bigger than anyone of us. This is not a hundred yard dash - it is a marathon. The difference is that after 26 miles, 385 yards you get to fall down at the end of a marathon. Here there is no finish line. Find time for all three phases of your life. Be open to serendipity, fun and risk. Some of the keys to success, professionally and personally, are openness, honesty, communication, tolerance and humility. And a sense of humor goes a long way.

I have gone on way too long but I am passionate about SEs and my belief that we can change the world. This is the first time I've ever posted anything so I apologize for my verbosity and if I have offended anyone. I wish all of you the success you so richly deserve and that the world so needs.

Best wishes to all

I join the others in thanking Sara for starting this conversation – and for her ever so skillfully moving it along.

Me: Twice divorced, father of two, gingerly starting a new relationship, college educated, Berkeley residing, late 50s, ok financially thanks to bouts of "regular" employment and a vicariously engaged “stage-dad” of entrepreneurs these days rather than a social entrepreneur myself.

The demographics are important in understanding my comments below. While there are definite commonalities among those who fit the amorphous label of social entrepreneur (personality type, world view, risk tolerance…), there are also considerable heterogeneities – age, gender, location, socio-economic status, parenthood status, education, life-experience, etc. – that inevitably impact our personal bottom line.

• Personal history aside, I am not convinced that social entrepreneurs are more “single” than a comparable non-SE cohort. But either way, there seems to be a conflation of social entrepreneur as someone who is hard to live with and thus ultimately left and social entrepreneur as someone needing the new and exciting and thus the one who is likely to leave. Leaving a relationship and being left are very different (certainly to those of us in the latter category). I’d be interested to get a sense of which is more typical in the SE community. Is that what makes us different?

• Having kids does make a difference. Careful selection, good communication and disciplined commitment can help a couple survive the extra challenges of one or both being social entrepreneurs. It takes honesty, negotiation and willingness to find and accept alternatives to satisfy emotional needs. As hard as that is, it’s much harder to do with kids. Once the decision to have children is taken, the selection is made for you, Your kids are who they are and their emotional needs aren't negotiable. From experience, I can attest to the fact that explaining away the absences and missed sports events then negotiating make-up alternatives only goes so far. Basic education, decent housing, healthy lifestyles and catastrophic protection come at a price in this society. For financial reasons there is therefore (or should be) a conscious choice to have kids. As a number of the previous writers attest, it IS possible to be both a social entrepreneur and a good parent. But I doubt that any of them would claim that it didn’t involve sacrifices on one side or the other. I would hope that in most cases the kids come first. Society, after all, begins at home…

• Welfare economics holds that the optimization of well being is a function of a broad array of desirable and undesirable things – some tangible, some intangible – within a given set of constraints (time being the most obvious). It invariably involves trade-offs based on the implicit relative weight given to each by the individual. The challenge is to make those weights and trade-offs explicit as they evolve over time. Thinking about it that way makes more sense to me than trying to find “balance” -- often misinterpreted as splitting things equally and keeping them that way over time. To succeed, it takes constant awareness, openness, disciplined effort and trial and error (not to mention timing and luck). Not easy but isn't that what entrepreneurship is all about?

Thank you, Sara, for beginning such an important discussion and one that is so often overlooked.

As a young-ish (and single) SE, these questions and comments ring quite true to me. I do believe that our society should value the contributions that our field bring to the world much more substantially, both in financial return and in social returns. As David noted, beyond my very close network, many people do not know of the impact that I have had within the development world, let alone what I am seeking to impact and change within my lifetime.

1) Doing a quick inventory in my head of those I know in the SE world compared with those not, I find that most are single or divorced. Placing a substantial value on success with career and impact, significant others have often felt undervalued. Unless within the field, as another commenter noted, it is difficult to understand the drive that accompanies this kind of work.

2) Yes. Definitely. As a 30-year-old trying to figure out questions of income, lifestyle, impact, and growth potential, I have a hard time imagining my life in the future. I know how I want it to be, but I don't see a way of making that happen (yet). I feel that either I will be financially strapped or I will have to compromise my values and passions to earn a better income. If I continue to be single, this will be an even more weighted question. Let's face it: two incomes are better than one, even if in the social space. However, I, too, feel that, in a capitalist model, our sector needs to provide more models that work. Profit doesn't have to be maximized, as we should take SROI into account as well, but our sector does need to demonstrate scalable results and our society needs to value social impact. We need to meet half way.

3) This is simple for me. Personal return in the SE/philanthropy field is arbitrary. It's the value add to society that should matter, which addresses the second part of your question. Again, the matrices of evaluation need to take into account not only financial return but the social side as well. Results, we need 'em.

4) My personal bottom line is incredibly personal, but I would dare to say that I'm not the only one who feels this divide. I have always searched for balance. I pour my heart into my work, and have results to prove that, but at the end of the day, my work does not define me. My life is a weave of many different fabrics, and although I love having an impact in the world, I also love making my own dishes at the local pottery studio and tending to my year-round garden. All of these things nourish me. So the question for me is how to find balance. Within the conversation of dedication to our work, I struggle with how to build my SE and develop myself within the space while at the same time paying attention to all the other facets of my life that make me whole and that make me and my work thrive.

I hope that, as I grow, some of these questions will be answered. I thank you for bringing up this conversation and thank all those who have commented. Your perspectives are invaluable.

Sara, I respect you for putting this issue out in the public domain…and for writing from your heart.

To your key questions:

A) In your experience, are social entrepreneurs single or divorced more than in the regular population? What do you make of this?

From my life experience - spanning now government service, the private sector, nonprofit work and now social entrepreneurial work - is that hard-driven leaders and activists in all sectors suffer from the cliché absence of work/life balance. When I worked at the State Capitol, the phrase “legislative widow” was commonly in vogue. So, the issue is bigger and scary.

B) Do social entrepreneurs tend to be more financially at-risk than their non-social entrepreneur peers? What should be done about this, if anything?

To the extent most social entrepreneurs are essentially self-employed small businesspeople, I don’t think they suffer from any greater or lesser financial insecurity than the general class of entrepreneurs. Let’s not ignore the high failure rates of most small businesses in the USA, the shameful lack of wealth creation opportunity at the BoP in America and the very reason we have social safety nets, like MediCare and Social Security. These realities exist because in the land of market capitalism, capitalism can become what a European official once called “savage capitalism”. A Greek adage reminds us, “First secure an independent income, then practice virtue.”

C) What is the nature of the “personal return” philanthropists obtain from giving? How should this be factored into the assessment of social value creation?

This is a damn good question. Indeed, every nonprofit and for-profit development officer is trying to answer it. But it is a separate matter from assessing bottom lines and the true value of an enterprise. Perhaps, we might scold ourselves (quietly and gently) with the admonishment that social enterprises have missions and goals that should be larger than we are. We do not create a social enterprise for an ego boost, as a relationship substitute or as a self-aggrandizing resume enhancer. It is about the mission, first.

Sara, you made me think hard about these tough issues. We all face them. You are a champion, the Diogenes we all need.

I agree with Jonathan's comments. This is a tough question and each of us will answer it differently, and the answer will be different at different times in our lives.

I'm 63 and have been devoting the past 20 years to the mission of the non profit I've led. Prior to that I spend 17 years in corporate jobs where I worked 6 days a week, then did my volunteer- leadership in additional hours.

I think "mission driven" is a fact of life and there are many personal sacrifices that come with this. My kids did not "sign up" for this work, yet they sometimes say "You love those other kids more than me." That's harsh criticism.

Yet, in my heart I respond, "If I don't try to make this a better, safer world for you to grow up, and raise your own kids, who will?"

The responses to Sara's question have been interesting and I think they differ with a) how old you are; b) how successful you have been in finding the resources to do your work; and c) what degree of personal income you had before you entered this field (e.g. the Greek adage “First secure an independent income, then practice virtue.”

I think one key point in this discussion is about maintaining balance--balance between time for work, time for loved ones, time for oneself, time for interests outside of one's business. Social entrepreneurs do tend to be a dedicated group. When your goal is changing the world, that can easily become all-consuming. But it's so important to keep that balance, or we'll simply burn-out--and end up making the kind of sacrifices discussed in this article.

I remember once when I was young in my career, and meeting with a fairly older, single woman. She was a successful venture capitalist. I don’t know that I would consider her life successful. She traveled the world incessantly and was on every important board. But she seemed tired and joy was scarce. She told me to “Pack it all in.”

I didn’t. I kept my balance. I started a nonprofit and I did creative improv. I took care of my very young nephews and nieces. I loved life and I loved the people in my life.

We need to be renewed. We need to feel honored as whole, functioning people with families, outside interests, balanced lives, as well as our commitment to achieving the goals and vision of the organizations we run. The beauty of this balance is that I come back energized to UniversalGiving. My mind has had “time off’ and is thrilled to reengage with our efforts to serve. I look at challenges in a new light. My energy is renewed. I bring new skills to the table; my thoughts are stronger and more helpful. It's better for me--and for my organization.

Sincerely,
Pamela Hawley
Founder and CEO
UniversalGiving

phawley@universalgiving.org
www.universalgiving.org

Living and Giving blog
www.pamelahawley.wordpress.com

One of the things I learned from my parents is that good (verbal) communication is the key to a happy relationship. One of the things I learned from my recent relationship is that my reliance on verbal communication has dulled my natural ability to tune into and trust my own wordless emotional frequencies and those of others to an extent that ultimately diminished my relationship's success. If I am going to achieve all I want to personally and professionally, I need to cultivate my ability to trust in this form of communication more than I have done.

I consider myself reasonably intuitive about people, but in a sort of a point-in-time, first-impression kind of way. Perhaps it is the legacy of generations of college graduates in my life that understanding is verbal in nature... if one can explain something, it's real, and if one can't, it can't quite be trusted or understood.

The knowledge my former significant other has seems to be very different, whether it was passed down from his Persian parents, who had little opportunity to go to school in their village, or whether he arrived at it some other way. While he is much less interested in talking about emotion than most people I've known in America, he is far more conscious of his internal sense of emotional energy. This has certain simultaneous limitations and strengths: he observes what is, not what he hopes or wishes would be, sometimes glossing over emotional significance for others, but also cutting through political b.s.

What has been an (all too slow) process of discovery for me about his approach to communication is the potential for a kind of Horse Whisperer exchange of information between two people, at a non-verbal emotional level, that is itself a form of dialog... one that may be more ancient and more universal than verbal communication, and which in some cases may be the only real option.

I consider myself a student of this wordless art of communication, believe it should be preserved by those who still live and breathe it, and taught to the rest of us. I hope that the social entrepreneurs around the world who possess it will recognize how different and valuable it is compared with what may come from the more institutionalized west.

You know Sara, I don't think we know who we are, until we end up doing what we do. And we are drawn to people who heal us too, sounds like your ex-Persian partner did that. For new beginnings you have been able to challenge yourself and see other possible levels of being (like non-verbal, which I agree is hard to do.) There's a fine line with emotional frequencies, it's a thread, I agree the East is better at it. Words help too, but as Mother Teresa had said 'love cannot remain by itself it must be put into action.'

Then there's the East meets West connection itself, which has it's own set of complications (of culture.) But you know Sara, science has done studies to prove that heart energy is 500 times more powerful than any other energy center in the body, including the brain, so it's resonance can override differences.

I think the take away is, although it's always helpful to be mindfully present, the heart always needs to be listened to.

I do see the pattern, so this makes sense to me, Sara. But I think this also applies to many more professions which are creative by definition. Most of my artist friends are single, all my writer friends are single. I suppose it's hard to share yourself when your potential partner has passion for something else, or for building something outside of you.

Good point. I've spoken with friends in the psychology and investing professions recently who are engaging in couples' therapy. One remarked that success is "having room for two minds in the relationship."

I've been mulling whether relationships that stay together do so because compared to those that don't the partners are: better at making this room; more graceful at navigating the fact that there isn't actually room for more than one at a time; or just more aligned in their interests and pursuits so the fact that there is only room for one mind at a time doesn't actually conflict with their needs. Or something else?

I heard somewhere that love is about having two minds without a single thought. With two-minds, it could come down to use it or lose it. What I think it's about is couples having room to grow - if they don't do it together they naturally part. To get through it, for me, one of my all-time favorite quotes came from a character called Dread Pirate Roberts 'life is pain, anyone telling you any different is selling you something.'

Sara,

Thanks for starting such a brave and important conversation. I'll weigh in as a fellow entrepreneur trying and hopefully succeeding at balancing life while advancing important work with all of the speed I can muster.

Academic and other teaching that stresses that the life of an entrepreneur is all about risk and 100 hour weeks perpetuates a dangerous myth that many of us buy into. There's this idea that we're somehow choosing the harder life, the life of a lone-wolf that can only hope to succeed against too tall odds by putting everything else - life, health, family - on hold.

We all made a tough choice - it'll never be easy to make a new business or change appear in the world - but to be as successful as our values demand, the best choice is to lead a balanced life. Find strength and power in balance. Taking time to focus on our health, to focus and nourish our relationships and not to work 100 hour weeks maximizes the creative energy and power that allows us to focus and drive the professional change we strive for.

I've built successful businesses while working non-insane hours. I'm raising kids that know me and expect me to be there at school plays and yes I've managed to stay married to a wonderful partner despite my own bouts of thick-headedness and stupidity. I count myself lucky beyond measure, but I know that I have to make choices to balance life in the face of a creative career.

I recognize the stress that comes from my CEO jobs and make lifestyle choices that handle and blow off the stress as much as I can. No, I can't take two week vacations and I do check my blackberry every night before falling asleep - and I'm on call to fly to India, Boston, or San Francisco at a moments notice. It's an incredibly difficult job and I'm not the easiest person to stay married to I'm sure, but I try to recognize and manage the stress in order to keep from going crazy with it.

From a purely corporate standpoint, I maximize shareholder value when I work smartest, not when I work hardest. There's no reward for burning the candle to exhaustion and making mistakes. So I choose to stay balanced, take care of myself and be fully 100% present and at my maximum potential during the 50 hours a week I'm at my desk pushing a new company forward. Then I switch off, listen to crazy music way too loud on the drive home, focus on my health and my family on evenings and weekends and remain on call 100% for the business. I'm always thinking about the new company, but if I'm not healthy then I'm not productive.

I don't see why a balanced life isn't as much the birthright of the successful entrepreneur as it is of the successful accountant, government worker, or bus driver.

Really sounds fantastic - congratulations! Are you married to an angel?!

Ah Sara you hit a hot button.

Two friends of mine who are shining examples of being devoted spouses and hard-working entrepreneurs are Jonathan Lewis, here at Social Edge and Brad Feld a serial entrepreneur now investor who has initiated and supported several efforts for the greater good such as free advice and coaching to entrepreneurs and supporting the state of Colorado’s economic development via relevant support for tech entrepreneurs

Both men, I note. Do they have wives and young children?

Wow - what a rich discussion. Sara, thanks for teeing this up. I have certainly seen these problems around me and within me - social entrepreneurs are overworked, under-played, and under-paid (as are many people who care and strive to make a difference).

A movement I've heard called lifestyle design is cropping up which gives me hope. Tim Ferriss coined the phrase in 4 Hour Work Week (http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/) which outlined a way to make ends meet only working 4 hours a week, and playing the rest of the time. And it seems to be evolving. For example, my friend Lion Isis has a new blog called the Superhero Lifestyle (http://www.superherolifestyle.com/) which describes a way of embracing social entrepreneurship and doing good in one's career combined with lifestyle design which allows for control over one's time, location and other aspects of life.

The issue is that social entrepreneurs and other activists may well be work-aholics (I know I am) in which case a 4 hour workweek would not cut it. When you love your work it's hard to put it down. Boundaries are key.
But how do we learn moderation and self-care when hard work has been our norm for so long?

Thanks for weighing in, both of you! From what I've seen, people learn from models better than anything else. If our models work a ton, are inflexible, take themselves very seriously, have unrealistic expectations of themselves or others, or generally don't pay attention to enjoying life, we learn that that's the norm. If by contrast the models we life with love to enjoy life, get things done while showing their appreciation of and respect for others and themselves, and expect to make time for others, we understand how to DO this. Who and what are our models?

I love Lion's blog that you linked to-- particularly because he points out that when attempting quasi superhero sleep phasing, he became both more peaceful and creative, but also couldn't keep himself warm.... What does this tell us?

Might it be that (social) entrepreneurs can only be sustainably personally happy by being just, well, reasonably good, and not GRRRREAT?

I would like to turn this discussion on its head and see it from another perspective. We all have limits on our individual time and energy - they are precious and finite resources, and we continually make choices about how we use them.

Many of us (like myself) give up aspirations of social entrepreneurship when faced with these choices - we put our families first. For women like me, brought up and educated to believe we can have it all and do it all, it is not an easy choice, but one we still make readily when forced to choose between competing demands and priorities. Our priorities become more stark when we have children, and our yearning commitment to make a difference in the world has to take second place to an unalterable commitment to our own children.

The people that go on to become successful social entrepreneurs are either never faced with that simple yet far-from-easy choice or take the other road. They either make choices that mean they remain single, or possibly they make choices to prioritise their entrepreneurial ambitions at the expense of their personal relationships. Unless, I suppose, they have angelic partners (dare I say it, more likely women than men?) who hold it all together for them, no matter what - and how many angels do you know out there?

If I hadn't put my personal relationships first I might have become a successful social entrepreneur. I still like the idea, but only on a part-time basis - and that's not really workable, is it? Maybe in another 15 years, if I still have that choice?

My personal bottom line is my family. Yes, having children makes me more risk-averse; it also quite simply depletes the reserves of time and energy that I put into the world BC (before children). If I tried to do both, I'd do both badly!

I believe there is tremendous wisdom in what you are saying. I too am from the generation that was taught we can (and should) have it all (and, implicitly, at the same time), and I think that's probably not very sound "design thinking" for life or work.

Many of us are fortunate to have a considerably larger window of opportunity than people from generations before us into which to fit families and careers. Indeed, I don't pause enough to reflect on how incredibly fortunate I am to have opportunities to do both, period! It was International Women's Day this past week and certainly that reminds me of how much abundance there is in my life compared to so many and how hard the fight was and must still be.

Thank you for bringing your perspective into the discussion.

I've been mulling how to introduce another facet to this conversation, and figure I'll go ahead and risk delving further into my own details because had I known what I know now it would have saved a lot of effort and heartache, and maybe it will do so for someone out there.

As I mentioned before, I was with my s.o. (with a number of breakups in between) for 6 years that were both wonderful and inexplicably difficult. At year 5, I ran across the website of Asperger’s expert Tony Attwood and audio (http://www.tonyattwood.com.au/) of him describing what it's like to have Asperger’s Syndrome (AS) and it was a revelation. My s.o. thought much of it sounded like him, though not all, and I thought it was clear that AS explained a lot about what had been so difficult for us.

Although this simple discovery helped improve our relationship (from the 3 out of 10 that it had gotten to to a 6, according to my s.o. and I’d give it a 7), I was not able to persuade him to go back to couples counseling (where we'd been several times before but with little result, since the folks we saw didn't mention or address how AS functioned in adult relationships, and very possibly didn't know). It didn't occur to me that I could make changes myself that would make a big difference, so I admit I didn't even read the books written by people in NT/AS relationships that might have offered useful clues....

To make a long story short one night we had another of our classic disagreements, rooted in my misinterpretation of what he was doing as inconsiderate and in his sense that I was moody for no reason, and I think he saw that he'd better get out of the relationship before we had kids and it was too late.

Afterwards I finally read a bunch of the books on AS out there, and figured out that it might actually have been possible for me to stop (mis)interpreting his actions as if he were intentionally disregarding my feelings, and instead to recognize that he literally does not understand what I'm talking about or needing in certain situations. I think my misinterpretations of his actions were not just awful for me, but also very painful for him- he didn't know why he was making me so unhappy but he knew he was, and that somehow it wasn't fair.

And so a few weeks ago I began to test my new hypothesis, which at the time implied that he was avoiding contact not because he didn't care but because he didn't know what to do or say that would not make it worse for me than saying nothing. I told him a few days before the anniversary of the day we met how I'd be feeling on that day and that it would be nice for him to show me some sign that he was thinking of me. He invited me to lunch and brought me a flower. I continue to explore this relatively newfound understanding of what is and is not possible or happening compared to what I'd (incorrectly) assumed, and we've talked about this.

His perspective is that the fundamental issue is not Aspergers so much as the difference between the way men and women think. I think he may have a point. In any case, understanding AS may be the best way I have found of comprehending what those differences actually are in a way that is applicable to life.

Especially for those of us who've more or less expunged gender role expectations from the scripts of our lives, my suspicion is that learning about the difference between how "neurotypicals" experience the world and how those with Aspergers do, and keeping those differences in mind no matter who we are in relationship with (be it lovers, business partners or nation states!), may be very beneficial. If anybody relates to this I'd be happy to outline the characteristics and point to some resources.

Love the new photo, looking good Sara. I agree men and women are so fundamentally different in the way we think, that we're not only from different planets but it's very common "that he literally does not understand what I'm talking about" and for me, that's after 10 years together (without AS.) Sarah also makes a good point when generalizing, it's women who carry the most sacrifice in relationships.

...what I want to know Sara is, why him? Why was it him that had such an effect on you, and not anyone else - we are all drawn to certain people for a reason. Also an important aspect of this is if we judge people we have no time to love them, (even with our own limited time and resources) giving without any hesitation is what love is, and both love and magic take practice.

Don't feel like you have to answer any personal questions you're not comfortable with Sara. I forgot to add, it's been proven women have language on both sides of our brains, while men predominantly live only on their left sides, so it goes without saying, we're wired differently. And as anyone out there in readerland knows, love can also make people crazy....

Hi Jo, no worries, I went down this path, so without getting too much further down it I'll give the short answer, which is that he's an absolutely terrific, amazing, wonderful person, period. Actually for most of the days of our relationship I literally felt the happiest I'd ever been. I learned about all kinds of things. Loving him and being loved by him was divine. :)

I raise Aspergers in this forum because it was hugely useful to me to realize what that was, and I have to believe there are a lot of other struggling couples where AS, or simply the lack of practical understanding of differences between how the two people experience the world, is playing a role (not just in this community but possibly a few more in this community than elsewhere, since one of the characteristics of people with AS tends to be a strong sense of social justice-- and high intelligence!) who haven't yet come across information about it. I hope a few more might.

Also, personally I don't mean to imply that I think women do all the suffering in relationships. I think there's plenty on both sides. Some women may be willing to do some things that some men aren't, but if I put on my social economist hat, presumably that's because we're getting something from doing so.

Although I must agree with you, women probably suffer more than men in the world, based on poverty stats alone.

When I say we discovered a biological difference in how we are wired to think about the world, I didn't mean for that to sound like a judgment (and I regret that using a label like Aspergers can confuse this point). Instead it's so that maybe we can accept that we are literally each having a (very, very) different experience of the same situation.... and each of our experiences is equally legit. One is not right. They can -- and do!-- coexist. So given that that's the case, understanding the differences may give us a better chance at honoring the differences while thriving together.

I think though that putting some things into words at all makes them sound like judgments because it draws lines in the sand... Indeed this may be one of the reasons a lot of people shy away from social impact metrics-- sometimes the act of measuring diminishes or alters value. It's like the Heisenberger Principle of impact.

...one more point: a lot of the reasons my former s.o. is so wonderful to be with are also Aspergers traits. By traits I don't mean negatives. They're simply differences.

Apropos of our thread here the latest winner hot off the Southeast Asia Regional Finals Global Social Venture Competition presses is "Freehap" from Thailand-- their demo facebook app allows people to track how they feel every day. When aggregated they'll be able to not only help each of us become more aware of how we feel but also reveal geographic and demographic patterns. Their goal is nothing less than to track and "free" World Happiness! http://apps.facebook.com/howarewebyfreehap/index.php

They'll compete with roughly ten others at the Berkeley finals, which are open to the public, April 22-23- see http://www.gsvc.org/ for details.

Sara,

While, the main topic is about being married / unmarried, financially strong / not so strong. I would like to point out another group.

The group of married / in relationship people, who are absent from homes / families / partnerships. These people, the workers (for lack of a better word) supporting the social entrepreneurs in their endeavors or making things better for people in disaster / war etc areas, also suffer.

For example, the workers might not see, their families etc for months on end, while they support the initiatives on ground and often work in high stress and highly dangerous situations.

What impact does that take on their lives and health.

This is an interesting discussion among social entrepreneurs. For people who seem to thrive in changing things around them, or making a difference, the personal is always hidden and not dicussed. Yet, this is what makes the path or profession more dear and near because it touches the very person we are inside. Otherwise, no one truly deserves to be in this work.

My experience in the women's movement, it seems that most are either single (as a matter of choice) or divorced. I just become single again in my middle-age. Yes, it seems that those in relationships that survived were having partners who share the same passion. Well, my first one obviously did not share my passions, the next one tried to but there was just unfaithfulness in there.

Financial-wise, many of my colleagues prefer simple lifestyles so the bank balance did not matter much. Then there's the reality check coming of kids' growing up needing the best education. So we learn to become pragmatic. Sometimes we need to balance our social enterprises with a bit of business to earn the extra for extra needs.

Over-all the personal return is the satisfaction that comes from knowing we're doing something, changing something. This is the main motivation.

To your point, Maria, that the bank balance did not matter much to many of your colleagues, I spoke recently with Jeff Hodges about his experience doing financial advising with social entrepreneurs as compared with others.... He sometimes asks people to imagine what they would do or change if they only had a few years to live. He told me social entrepreneurs tend not to have as many regrets (or any) about what they wish they'd done work-wise or in terms of making a difference. I'm sure this will come as a surprise to no one on this forum! And this is wonderful.

Good stuff, Sara! Here's what I see, having spent most of my life in the non-profit advocacy sector:

Many of us are married, and even enjoy reasonable marital stability. However, the marriages that survive social entrepreneurship seem often to involve one spouse who is pretty quiet, emotionally even-keeled or understated, content to remain in the background -- and preferably earning a really stable salary! I also notice that the intense social entrepreneurs I know whose marriages fit this pattern experience a lot of their emotional intenseness outside of their marriage, not in it. Their marriage is more backdrop to their lives than center stage in some respects. I think it's hard for the institution of marriage to sustain two really emotionally intense people -- things would be too volatile. Is it fair to say that many social entrepreneurs are pretty intense? Perhaps my sample is too small to say this.

I know of one couple of well known academics who had it all -- a strong, very long-lasting marriage and shared work that was groundbreaking enough to perhaps earn them the title of entrepreneurs. It was kind of fairy-tale-ish until the wife died, at which point the husband went completely to pieces. His last years were bitterly unhappy. It made me wonder about the wisdom or desireability of having all one's personal eggs in one big My Whole Life basket. For myself, there are days I wish my partner were more into my work and wanted to hear more about it, but there are other days when I think, boy, it's a good thing he's so detached and isn't on this wild ride with me -- that I can come home to somebody who's glad to talk about baseball or something.

I know of some famous activists -- Jonathon Kozol and Frances Moore-Lappe come to mind -- who seem to have had a series of marriages/partnerships with people who were intimately connected with their work. Those relationships were like sparklers -- they burned bright, intense, and short. I have the sense that for them, they found companionship for each (or at least several) major stages of their work, not a single companion that could stay on for the whole long roller coaster.

My non-marital social life very much follows that pattern. Every job I've had has involved one or a few really close, passionate, consuming friendships that more or less come to an end when I move on to a new line of work.

The other point I'd like to address is the one of personal financial risk and personal return. I have done a lot of processing about this in recent years, trying to figure out why I so prefer volunteer work to paid work in some ways, and why, with my excellent academic credentials and considerable experience I have almost never earned a taxable amount of income. I think in my case the answer is a complicated stew of personality, pathology and how I've been situated.

The personality part is, I'm truly not very materialistic. It's easy for me to not spend much -- the most painful consequence of poverty in my experience has been the inability to give much money when that was clearly what was needed. I've been pretty indifferent to salary in part for this reason. I also tend to go for orphan causes, which by definition are not where the money is. I find them interesting, and wide open for experimentation.

Another temperament piece has to do with freedom. I'm answerable to almost no one but myself if nobody is paying me. I hate the feeling of having to follow somebody else's blueprint of what to do, and not being able to pursue my own passions and leadings wherever they take me, which is usually someplace unanticipated.

Where the pathology comes in for me is in the fact that I like the gratitude that comes with doing something as a volunteer, and the sense of emotional and social connection with people. I like the feeling of doing something for love, and getting love in return. The thought of getting paid for a motion of the heart is, well, just not as satisfying to me. At least, it hasn't been. But I recognize that there's an unhealthy neediness in this, and a corresponding burden on the recipients of my largesse. I do see this as pathology, and something that I've been working to change.

Another part of the pathology is a tendency to undervalue what I do, and to feel perpetually inadequate. If someone is paying me, I feel always as if I haven't really earned what they're paying me. I've almost always worked part time because of this. More accurately, I've been paid part time. I've worked full time and then some, becuase only if I worked more hours than they paid me for did I think they were getting their money's worth. I am slowly coming to see this as ridiculous, but it's pretty hard to change something that deep.

So I've spent most of my adult life in work where, had I been single, I would have been beyond "at risk" financially.

I sort of wonder how many social entrepreneurs share some of these patterns and pathologies. I am overcoming them. My new mission at work (I teach Spanish to mostly native speaker immigrant kids) is getting the schools to invest their treasure in improving opportunities and outcomes for immigrant kids. I'm in no way satisfied to make heroic personal efforts to help them achieve -- I want the institution to pony up for it. That's the only way good things going to happen on a sufficient scale. One of the biggest parts of my mission isn't just working with individual kids, though I love that part, it's educating the institution about its failures and its responsibilities and the moral imperative to invest money in solutions. I no longer feel crassly materialistic in proposing that they pay me for some of what I do that wasn't part of my initial job description -- it feels like that IS my job -- getting them to pay for good things to happen!

I've been active in the field of 'social accounting' for nearly a decade now, supporting enterprises understand how they can identify, map and 'prove' the value that they create; and in recent years I've begun to wonder how I, as an evangelist for the practice, might be able to 'do it on myself' and as an individual, begin to understand and measure the impacts and social value I create through my individul professional practices.

Encouragingly my efforts and ideas to date seem to have met with some appreciation, and the UK Social Audit Network has recently profiled my work to date in this regard in their current newsletter (see p3)http://www.socialauditnetwork.org.uk/[…]/circjuly2010.pdf