I guess the crux here is how self directed a given individual is? If they are already working/volunteering full time then they probably would benefit much less from such a program. Individuals seeking to transition can benefit from this structure, especially if they are on the younger side. For better or worse, a self-contained program also makes a stronger case for funders, as they will have a more concrete grasp of what they are buying.
Our open-ended residency is most useful for people who are already doing solid work and can level up in our environment. The value is to do your best work, and live your best life with fewer constraints, better feedback loops, and a community of peers pushing similar frontiers. Structure could be beneficial for people in transition: career shifters, recent graduates, researchers testing fit for independent work, and impact entrepreneurs. Our programs would give you the peers in your cohort, and the necessary tools and guardrails on your journey.
The funder clarity point is very similar to startup ecosystem VC funding. “We subsidize housing for self-directed people” is vague and hard to evaluate. “We run a 3-6 month fellowship with structured programming, embedded assessment, and outcome tracking” gives funders something concrete to fund and measure. That’s exactly why we’re building toward the latter; it’s better for residents and makes a clearer case for support.
The self-direction spectrum is something we’re thinking hard about as we design programming and guide our community. Too much structure and you lose the benefits of extended deep work time. Too little, and some residents drift without making progress. We’re aiming to build the supportive structure, the scaffolding (regular check-ins, peer/coach accountability, access to mentorship, etc.) that supports without micromanaging, and each resident can get custom benefits fit for their needs.
I guess the crux here is how self directed a given individual is? If they are already working/volunteering full time then they probably would benefit much less from such a program. Individuals seeking to transition can benefit from this structure, especially if they are on the younger side. For better or worse, a self-contained program also makes a stronger case for funders, as they will have a more concrete grasp of what they are buying.
Exactly right on both counts.
Our open-ended residency is most useful for people who are already doing solid work and can level up in our environment. The value is to do your best work, and live your best life with fewer constraints, better feedback loops, and a community of peers pushing similar frontiers. Structure could be beneficial for people in transition: career shifters, recent graduates, researchers testing fit for independent work, and impact entrepreneurs. Our programs would give you the peers in your cohort, and the necessary tools and guardrails on your journey.
The funder clarity point is very similar to startup ecosystem VC funding. “We subsidize housing for self-directed people” is vague and hard to evaluate. “We run a 3-6 month fellowship with structured programming, embedded assessment, and outcome tracking” gives funders something concrete to fund and measure. That’s exactly why we’re building toward the latter; it’s better for residents and makes a clearer case for support.
The self-direction spectrum is something we’re thinking hard about as we design programming and guide our community. Too much structure and you lose the benefits of extended deep work time. Too little, and some residents drift without making progress. We’re aiming to build the supportive structure, the scaffolding (regular check-ins, peer/coach accountability, access to mentorship, etc.) that supports without micromanaging, and each resident can get custom benefits fit for their needs.