Why We Chose Not to Scale in 2024
We incorporated Pivot Holdings International in early 2024 with a 501(c)(3) status, a board, and a long list of program ideas. The obvious move was to launch hard — start cohorts, raise money, rack up participant numbers, and build a story we could take to donors.
We didn’t do that. Instead, we spent most of 2024 deliberately not scaling.
Here’s why, and what we did instead.
The pressure to launch fast
Every nonprofit feels it. Donors want numbers. Boards want momentum. Founders want to feel like something is happening. The default path in our sector is to launch a flagship program, onboard 30 participants, and point at the participant count on a slide.
We built the slide. We declined to run it.
The reason: we had watched too many peer organizations hit the wall at year three. They launched year one, stretched thin year two, and collapsed year three when the first donor burned out and the founding team couldn’t keep up with support obligations to 200 alumni. The participant numbers looked great right up until they didn’t.
We wanted to build something that would still be serving entrepreneurs in 2030. That meant building the foundation first, not the cohort first.
What “not scaling” actually meant
Through 2024, we made a series of deliberate choices:
- No paid staff. Bob DeLisa (founder) ran operations. The board served as governance. We used contractors for specific deliverables, not ongoing roles. This kept burn low and decision speed high.
- No flagship program launch. We designed programs, documented them, and piloted pieces, but we did not open formal enrollment at scale.
- No capital campaign. We took individual donations through Givebutter and maintained the 501(c)(3) infrastructure, but we didn’t run a major donor push.
- No real estate. We stayed virtual. No office, no coworking subscription, no lease.
- No partnership announcements. We had conversations with half a dozen potential partners and signed nothing until we knew exactly what we were offering.
To anyone watching from outside, 2024 looked quiet. From the inside, it was the year we did our hardest work.
What we built instead
Four things mattered:
1. The program architecture. Instead of launching one program and stretching, we mapped out the full program portfolio we eventually wanted to run — what became the PivotBiz + PivotLife divisions, with over 40 programs across entrepreneurship, personal development, technology, and financial education. Most would never launch directly from us; they’d be fielded by Champions in later years. But having the full map let us see which few programs were the right place to start.
2. Governance that will hold. Our attorney-reviewed bylaws were finalized in May 2024 and ratified in June. Conflict-of-interest policies. Board member directory. Committee structures. A signed resolution for every major decision. This is the unglamorous work that keeps a 501(c)(3) defensible under funder scrutiny five years out.
3. Relationships, not transactions. Instead of a capital campaign, we had conversations. Fiscal sponsors. Angel investors in mission-driven nonprofits. Corporate giving officers. Fellow nonprofit operators. None of them wrote checks in 2024. Many will over the next five years.
4. The AI thesis. Late 2023 and early 2024 were when it became obvious that large language models were going to change what a nonprofit could do with a small team. We spent 2024 studying, testing, and designing around that — instead of building the old way and retrofitting AI awkwardly later. (More on this in our 2026 piece on why AI isn’t optional for entrepreneurs.)
What we gave up
There’s an honest cost to this approach:
- We didn’t serve participants in 2024. People who could have benefited from entrepreneurship training that year had to find it elsewhere. That’s a real loss, and it weighs on us.
- Our public presence was thin. The website went through three redesigns. Social media was sparse. Press coverage was nonexistent.
- Some board members rotated out. Not everyone who signs up for a scrappy nonprofit wants to spend a year on bylaws instead of programs. That’s fair, and we parted on good terms.
We accepted those costs because the alternative — launching fast, collapsing at year three — would have cost far more entrepreneurs far more opportunity.
Why it will compound
Every month we spent in 2024 on foundation work is saving us months of rework now. Our programs are launching into real governance infrastructure. Our messaging is sharp because we fought the words out early. Our partnerships are easy to build because we know exactly what we do and don’t do.
And here’s the less obvious one: by not launching in 2024, we positioned ourselves to launch in 2026 with AI — not the 2023 version, but the current one. A nonprofit that started its programs in 2024 is now retrofitting AI tools into existing workflows. We’re starting with them native.
What this means for 2026
Pivot opens real program enrollment this year. Champions are signing on. Our first cohorts will be small — on purpose. The 40-program portfolio is an ambition, not an immediate launch schedule.
We’ll scale when the foundation tells us we’re ready, not when the sector tells us we’re behind.
If you’re building something similar
A few things we’d tell our 2023 selves:
- The donors who pressure you to “just launch” are often not the donors who’ll still be there in year three. Find funders who value patience and build your plan around them.
- Bylaws are not a chore. They’re the spine of everything you do later. Spend the money on an attorney who specializes in nonprofit governance.
- Your program portfolio is not your Year One launch plan. Map the long arc, then pick the one or two programs you can run well now.
- Quiet is not the same as dormant. The years that look slow from outside are often the years that made everything else possible.
We didn’t scale in 2024 because we were building something worth scaling. In 2026, we’re starting to show the work.
🦅
Related: Why Entrepreneurship Training Needed a Reset · The Champion Model
